Why does Alexandra as a royal baby name sounds so familiar?

By Patricia Treble - Thursday, April 11, 2013 at 3:25 PM - 0 Comments

(AP Photo/Matt Dunham)

So after weeks of being consigned to the bargain basement of possible royal baby names, Alexandra has surged in recent days from 10:1 odds to a 2:1 favourite. (Even “Barack” makes an appearance, at 200:1, mind you.)

Well, way back in December–when the pregnancy was initially announced–everyone was plumping for Elizabeth, or possibly Diana.

Here was the list from Ladbrokes, the betting agency:

Elizabeth 8:1
Frances 10:1
John 10:1
Charles 10:1
Diana 12:1
Anne 12:1
James 12:1
George 14:1
Mary 14:1
Philip 14:1
Richard 16:1
Edward 16:1
Catherine 16:1
Sarah 16:1
Spencer 20:1
Andrew 20:1
David 20:1
Jessica 20:1
Victoria 20:1
Alexander 20:1

Note that Alexandra isn’t on the list, only the male version of Alexander was there (now relegated to 33:1). A month later Elizabeth and Diana were still the front runners.

Yet, within hours of the news that Kate was in hospital with acute morning sickness, I’d created a list of my favourite names for the future monarch—five for a girl and the same number for a boy, along with my reasonings. The first choice? Alexandra (Philip was my top pick for a boy).

While no one is going to know who’s right and who’s wrong until the baby is born—Kate recently said it’s due mid-July—it’s kinda nice to think the world is coming around to my way of thinking. At least in Britain’s gambling shops.

Did Kate say ‘daughter’ or ‘dog?’ — let’s go the videotape

By Patricia Treble - Friday, March 8, 2013 at 5:04 PM - 0 Comments

(Scott Heppell/AP)

Did Kate spill the beans that she’s expecting a daughter? For all those not following the kerfuffle, a recap. During a visit earlier this week to Grimsby earlier, Kate was handed a teddy and thanked the lady for the gift.

A woman who overheard the exchange told reporters that Kate said, “Thank you, I will take that for my d…” Speculation flew that Kate meant “daughter,” accidently revealing that she was carrying the future queen regnant. Then, as people examined video of the incident frame by frame, doubts set in. Did she mean “dog”—her young cocker spaniel Lupo—but stopped because it would be rude to say she was going to use the gift as a canine chew toy?

Now the Daily Mail claims to have have the definitive answer to the vexing question—and a video taken of the exchange that the London tabloid says backs up their claim. Here’s their money paragraph:

Continue…

Newsmakers of the week

By Colby Cosh, Ryan Mallough and Jamie Weinman - Wednesday, January 16, 2013 at 1:11 PM - 0 Comments

Sang Tan/AP

Critical buzz

While Kate, duchess of Cambridge, gamely called her first formal portrait “amazing” and “brilliant,” critics compared Paul Emsley’s work, now hanging in London’s National Portrait Gallery, to North Korea’s mawkish propaganda portraits and even the soft-focus Twilight films.

Rebelle with a cause

It’s been a wild ride for Quebec filmmaker Kim Nguyen, 38. Last week, War Witch (Rebelle), his intimate drama about an African child soldier, received an Oscar nomination for Best Foreign Language Film. And this week War Witch, made for a modest budget of $3.8 million, topped the list of movies honoured by the newly created Canadian Screen Awards with 12 nominations, outstripping larger productions such as Midnight’s Children, Goon and Cosmopolis. Shot in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nguyen’s film features a stunning performance from Rachel Mwanza, who was discovered as a homeless street kid in Kinshasa.

McIlroy’s raise

The worst kept secret in golf was unveiled this week when Nike announced it signed top PGA golfer Rory McIlroy to a reported $200-million contract. The deal makes McIlroy one of the world’s highest-paid athletes, and gives Nike the rights to golf’s two biggest and most marketable stars (including No. 2 ranked Tiger Woods). Woods was believed to be recruiting McIlroy for Nike while the two were paired together during the PGA playoffs last fall, and seen to be getting along well. The 23-year-old McIlroy will sport the swoosh for the first time at this weekend’s HSBC Championship in Abu Dhabi. Continue…

Royal baby coverage in 1948 vs. 2012: What’s the diff?

By Jaime Weinman - Monday, December 3, 2012 at 1:06 PM - 0 Comments

Princess Elizabeth with Prince Charles in 1949 (Keystone-France/Gamma-Keystone/Getty)

Since I don’t know enough about Kate Middleton’s pregnancy but still feel I must contribute something to the most important event of our lives, I have decided to quote coverage of Princess Elizabeth’s pregnancy from 1948. I mean, obviously, things are very different. Back then you had a demoralized Britain looking to the royal baby as a welcome relief from its day-to-day problems, while Canada was technically under the monarchy. Today, you have a demoralized Britain looking to the royal baby as a welcome relief from its day-to-day problems, while Canada is technically under the monarchy – but this time, Newfoundland is a province. So, very different.

Anyway, here is how it works. First, rumours start circulating that the Princess may be having a baby, appearing side-by-side with an official statement from “official sources.” Their statement is that they can make no statement, not even of who they are. The process is that the rumours begin in the tabloids and then make their way into the wire services, which are free to report that someone else is reporting these rumours.

London, March 21 – A London Sunday paper said today Princess Elizabeth is expected to have a baby in October.

The story drew an official “no comment” from Buckingham palace sources. It is the first time a British newspaper has come out with a definite statement as to the princess’s pregnancy. However, the Sunday Pictorial said two months ago that Princess Elizabeth and Prince Philip confided to intimates they would like a baby in the first year of their marriage.

Today’s front page story in the People, one of the most widely circulated of the popular Sunday newspapers, said an official announcement cancelling the princess’ public dates is “expected at any time in the next few weeks.”

Then if British tabloids aren’t enough, there are foreign-language sources to report on, and rumours that the Princess is giving up strenuous activity. The court sources can now move from saying nothing to officially denying that the Princess has cancelled all her upcoming engagements. But this in turn just creates more anticipation, since these unnamed sources aren’t officially denying that the baby is coming.

London, April 1 – Responsible court sources took cognizance today of a French news report, attributed to a Colonel Backhouse, that Princess Elizabeth is pregnant. The report said the princess intended to call off her engagements in June.

A palace informant said: “That’s certainly contrary to fact. Instead of cancelling her June engagements, the princess has taken on three or four additional ones, and there is every likelihood she’ll be making public appearances in July. As for Colonel Backhouse, we simply don’t know who he is.” A palace source also denied that Princess Elizabeth had given up horseback riding.

There was still no direct confirmation or denial from any palace source on the reports that the princess is expecting a baby.

Finally, after two months of anticipation, speculation and tabloid tidbits, the official announcement comes and the world rejoices. And the Buckingham Palace insiders, whoever they are, congratulate themselves on how great a job keeping the whole thing a secret even though everyone seemed to know it was coming: “Despite all the talk, it has been a well-kept secret – at least to us. Not even the princess’s ladies-in-waiting have known she was expecting a baby.”

And, of course, along with the official announcement there are still rumours a-plenty, the biggest one being about whether the baby will be a boy or a girl. Anonymous sources have ways of telling us about these things, and they’re always right:

One reliable source said the royal physicians had medical reasons to believe the princess’s child would be a girl.
“Nobody, of course, can be sure about these things.”

I Hope This Was Supposed To Be Ironic…

By Jaime Weinman - Monday, June 22, 2009 at 9:22 PM - 2 Comments

…I saw a newsper headline today that read:

On Tonight: Historic Turns for Iran, Jon, Kate

And speaking of priorities: while Jon and Kate’s separation/divorce/ratings stunt may get extra viewers for tonight’s episode, it seems likely that some of their publicity (and therefore, some of the viewers they might have gotten) has been stolen by all the Perez/Will.I.Am coverage. For a large portion of the day, they weren’t even the top story on Wesmirch.com.