12/06/2012 08:17 EST | Updated 02/05/2013 05:12 EST

Media Bites: Caring About Kate's Bump Is Patriotic, Not Creepy!

Getty Images
SINGAPORE - SEPTEMBER 12: Prince William, Duke of Cambridge and Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge pose with a young artist as they visit The Rainbow Centre on day 2 of the Diamond Jubilee Tour of the Far East on September 12, 2012 in Singapore. Prince William, Duke of Cambridge and Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge are on a Diamond Jubilee Tour of the Far East taking in Singapore, Malaysia, the Solomon Islands and the tiny Pacific Island of Tuvalu. (Photo by Arthur Edwards - Pool/Getty Images)

In ordinary circumstances, random bouts of condom non-use among celebrity couples will rarely make national news -- unless, of course, the news source is TMZ or, as the Halfiax Herald's Bruce McKinnon hilariously imagined, the Pope's Twitter account. Or a Canadian newspaper.

Canada, after all, is a constitutional monarchy, the only system of government where carefully monitoring the bedroom habits of a certain pair of celebs isn't just vicarious titillation, it's a requisite component of citizenship! Thus, in the aftermath of Monday's big announcement of Duchess Kate's impending baby bump, all of Canada's major papes quickly churned out lead editorials welcoming our beloved fetal monarch-to-be.

And lots of Kate pics. For purely constitutional reasons, of course.

"A heartfelt congratulations to Will and Kate," cheers the National Post editorial board. Good monarchists that they are (well, aside from Jon Kay), the Posties are stoked that the royal fetus will no doubt prolong the "happy spell" of positive press that the Windsors have been getting lately, what with all the weddings and Jubliees and such. Sure, they concede, some cynics might argue this system of picking heads of state by womb lottery isn't really the most "rational way to run a country," but who cares about them! "There will soon be an outpouring of cheesy Royal memorabilia," they gush excitedly.

This plump young babe will indeed be a fine "royal treat," agrees the Calgary Herald not at all creepily. Obviously they'll be cool with any "healthy infant, regardless of its gender" but just imagine if Kate had a multiple birth! "Wouldn't that be the icing on the cake?" they drool, mandibles rubbing in anticipation.

But royal pregnancies aren't just about commemorative booties and endlessly debating whether Catherine should just get over her morning sickness and stop being such a dainty little, uh, princess. There are also profound political implications to this birth, right, Globe and Mail?

Oh my yes. Last year, they note, the various Commonwealth prime ministers "agreed to end the archaic rules that give male children priority over female children as heirs to the throne and prevent those heirs from marrying Roman Catholics" (and who said the Commonwealth was useless!). But get this: under Commonwealth law, each separate nation in the Queenosphere still has to individually "adopt legislation to that effect" too, and no one has! Not even St. Vincent and the Grenadines, who are usually so good about this sort of thing.

Yeah, "Canada needs to get moving" fast and fix these "unfair" rules agrees the Toronto Star. I mean, just imagine what a tragedy it would be for a nice little Catholic girl to be excluded from the royal family simply on the basis of her gender and religion, when we all know the only just basis of royal discrimination is not having the right kind of magical blood.

Anyway, point is, in a constitutional monarchy like ours, royalty matters, which means every little random thing royalty does matters, too.

So remember: next time you're thinking impure thoughts about Kate's hot bod or gawking at Wills' ever-expanding bald spot, you're not a creepo -- you're a patriot!


Potential Baby Names For Will And Kate


Speaking of hereditary birthright, Justin Trudeau's been back in the news lately following some controversial statements he made the other day.

Yeah, you're right, I probably should clarify.

We may recall that way back in the distant past (ie; October) there used to be a thing in this country called the "gun registry." Justin Trudeau voted in favour of it!

But wait! Last Friday he recanted his vote and said the thing "was a failure!" Flip!

But then on Monday he said he'd eagerly "vote again" to keep it! Flop!

And now, as of yesterday, he's apparently totally against it once again. Double-Flip!

In a testament to just how many gun control positions JT's taken over the last six days, the nation's editorial pages are really all over the place with this story. Apparently it's difficult to write a conclusive column about Justin's beliefs when Justin himself insists on simultaneously co-inhabiting several distinct dimensions of alternate reality.

In the National Post, for example, Chris Selley is pleased with Justin, but only because he clearly wrote his column some point after the first flip but before the latter two flops, allowing Chris to praise J-Tru for his willingness "to use his frontrunner position to blow some stuff up" and challenge his party's conventional wisdom on gun control, "rather than coast to victory." Ditto for folks on the other side, such as the Star's Chantal Hebert, who frets about Trudeau's disgraceful (as of Sunday) efforts to distance himself from his party's "prouder past."

More recent columns, however, such as Tuesday's snippy offering from the Sun's Lorne Gunter, seem, for some reason, just a tad more exasperated.

The man is a "dunce," he growls. Justin's "flip-flopped and backtracked, rescinded, reasserted and contradicted himself," so many times it's now "impossible to know whether there is even a kernel of intelligent thought in his gun policy." Or his entire pretty skull, for that matter

Indeed, agrees Kelly McParland in the Post. At this point pretty much no one has a reason to be happy: "Liberals," he notes, "have to wonder what else he'll throw overboard," while non-Libs "have to wonder if he believes anything he says, and will stick by it."

On the other hand, he does have the magic blood.