ACROSS the Atlantic, coverage of the new Royal baby was enthusiastic, and ripe with potential for analysing Britain's mental state.
More than one news organisation suggested the new baby will provide the UK with relief from the torment of the ongoing Brexit debacle.
A US news and opinion website noted that the British anxiety over "Brexit can be replaced by a fresh obsession."
The usually sober CBS news still led with 'It's a Boy!' and added: "Former Hollywood star Meghan's baby bump was one of the most photographed in history, but for all the attention received in the womb, this royal birth was a private affair."
READ MORE: Royal baby born
The New York Times said that "Meghan Is the Duchess the Royal Family Needs: The British monarchy has always gathered fresh power when it is useful. The new baby will gild the myth."
The paper said: "The British press, which for weeks has been positively giddy with rumor, is released from its stifling wait for actual news of a royal baby."
The Toronto Star ran a piece that said the baby announcement was "so American."
It said: "There was plenty of evidence leading up to the birth that the Sussexes were going to do parenthood differently.
"First of all, there was the splashy, celebrity-studded and very American baby shower in New York. There was flower arranging and gifted suitcases! Private jets and Oprah!"
Time Magazine noted that "following tradition, a framed notice formally announcing the arrival of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s baby was placed on an easel outside of Buckingham Palace on May 6" and depicted the easel.
The august magazine noted: "it is the Queen‘s eighth great-grandchild."
The Atlantic spoke to Royal historian Carolyn Harris, asking her what being seventh in line to the throne meant.
It also headline a piece: "A New Royal Baby Offers Brits a Welcome Reprieve: The anxiety over Brexit can now be replaced by a fresh obsession."
Ms said: "Past precedent indicates that someone who is seventh in line often receives a lot of media attention at the time of birth, which gradually dissipates as they grow older and gradually come down the line of succession."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here