Cambridge Baby Suffers Media Overexposure While Still in Utero

Well, it would be redundant to say the incoming Cambridge Baby is receiving a boatload of press, chat via social media and really pointless news coverage. The major US networks are setting up camp by the hospital as we speak. I can’t help it, this malarkey reminds me of this clip from the movie “Anchorman.”

You’ve gotta admit it’s beyond similar. I’m not likening Kate Middleton to an endangered Asian marsupial, just the idiot news. Dear lord! As I am typing this, another news bit about the royal birth came on the tube. Yeesh! (This one was about wax sculptures of the Duke & Duchess…that was BBC.)

Furthermore, genealogists–since they have nothing else to do?–have informed that the unborn child and Blue Ivy (Beyonce and Jay-Z’s daughter) are 23rd cousins twice removed. If that weren’t a waste of genealogy research, Baby Cambridge is also 11th cousins with Ben Affleck & Jennifer Garner’s kids AND 28th cousin to Brad & Angelina’s ever-expanding brood. Since so many of those kids are adopted, doesn’t that statistic change a bit? So 28th cousin to the natural ones only? (To which royal figure am I related? With this type of research, I’d wager all of ’em.)

Even more frightening is the use of technology to come up with this:

what will the Royal baby look like

Are the bookmakers taking odds on whether the kid will appear as predicted?

Since the announcement that the Duchess of Cambridge was carrying the heir, the media hoopla has probed the nether-regions of logic looking for an update. [Let’s bear in mind, I’m living in the US. It’s not our royal family. Didn’t we reject a monarchy and the privilege of nobility? Yet here we are.]

An event that hasn’t even happened is evening news material.

Get a life news!

in case this Cambridge baby fix wasn’t enough

About ♔ la dauphiine ♔

Connecticut-based jewelry monger, history buff, Mets fan. On the hum-drum side, call me a lauded poet, novelist and ghost-writer. (That's right, I haunt prose.)
This entry was posted in court and social, england, other glittery events and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Cambridge Baby Suffers Media Overexposure While Still in Utero

  1. Titanic Buff says:

    Talk about some crazy stuff. I wonder if the genealogists’ information is true? How interesting it would have been to have had their resources to do some “serious” genealogy work. And really, 28th cousins? Does that even count?!


    • You would know more than I. How long would it take to dig until you found a royal you were descendant from? 28th cousins…how many generations does that go back? And what the heck does “once” or “twice removed” mean anyhow?
      So many questions & you’re the only genealogist I know!


      • Titanic Buff says:

        Speaking from experience it would take quite a bit of time. I’ve been researching my family tree for six or seven years and with one exception I’ve not traced any of them outside of the US. I can understand the genealogists (were they professional pr amateur?) tracing the “Royal’s” genealogy easily because they have prominent lines, right? But the “celebrities” on the other hand. I know very little about them or their backgrounds but if the family history is like the average Americans it would take a lot of work and time, especially if their ancestors immigrated pre-19th century. It doesn’t help so many records were lost in the Civil War and that in rural areas of the Colonial Era records were practically nonexistent. It isn’t impossible to trace one’s lines back to Europe. But given they are supposedly “28th cousins” that would mean their common ancestor is from way back when. I’m not saying their wrong just that I’m doubtful. Whoo! What a tangent. Hopefully it makes sense. 🙂

        The “twice removed” means that if two people are second cousins twice removed they come from two different generations. For instance I have a second cousin. His grandmother and my grandfather were sister and brother. We come from the same generation. My father on the other hand is my second cousin’s second cousin once removed. Make sense? I didn’t think so. 😀 I found a chart explaining this real well I’ll see if I can find it again.


        • Titanic Buff says:

          Bah! Could’t find it, but perhaps this will be a little more understandable:


        • Okay, this is response #1 because I’m gonna have to read this twice! I completely get the once removed, twice removed thing. But just a follow-up question to test my comprehension (ha, ha)

          If you’re referring to people of the same generation, does that make them “closer” genetically or further away than highly numbered cousins? Ex. my father’s cousin would be my second cousin once removed but HIS son would simply be my cousin or does he get bumped to third cousin status? But does that make him FURTHER related to me than someone who is my fifth cousin directly?

          I am now going to read your comment to my husband as we were laughing our asses off about couples so gauche being related (at all) to the Windsors.


          • Titanic Buff says:

            Um, to be honest I’m not sure. I would think that a second cousin would be more closely related to a second cousin once removed than to just a plain old second cousin because the bloodlines haven’t been – oh what’s the word – “polluted” (because my mind is too overworked to think up another term).

            For your above mentioned scenario, your father’s cousin’s son would be your second cousin no times removed. And his son would be your third cousin once removed. His son and your son would be third cousins. And their children would be fourth cousins and so on.

            Wow that’s a tough one. Your second cousin is more closely related to you then your fifth cousin because various non-related bloodlines haven’t been mixed in, I would think. Google has failed me miserably on this one, but thinking on it this is what I have come up with. :/


  2. Angelyn says:

    I had no idea there were so many posh cousins.


  3. Pingback: Tiara Time: Baby Cambridge’s First Tiara | tiaras and trianon

it's not just a love-affair with my own voice

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s