Opinion by Hull Daily Mail columnist Ian Midgley.
Quick. Ring the bells. Sound the fanfare. Organise an impromptu street party, put up some bunting and rejoice.
Our future monarch is about to make an appearance.
I'll spare you the gory details but, at some point this week, the third in line to the throne will be squeezed painfully from whence babies come and be delivered in much the same way as you and I were.
Having witnessed two of these events in the past, I can confirm it's not a particularly regal way to make an entrance.
Of course, if you believe David Icke and think all the royal family are alien lizards in disguise, the king/queen in waiting will no doubt emerge from a reptilian egg before feasting on several poor people especially sautéed for the occasion.
I don't believe David Icke, by the way. He's silly.
But the arrival of HRH Junior does raise several questions.
Firstly, it does make me wonder why an infant, for no other reason than the accident of its birth to one particular set of posh parents, should be destined to rule over me, happy and glorious, one day.
Now, I'm a Royalist. Always have been.
I quite like the idea of having a monarch and all the history and pageantry that goes with it.
I quite like singing the national anthem before England football games.
It makes me feel like a medieval oik about to go into battle against the Frogs at Agincourt or the Jocks (surely, "brave Scottish warriors" – Assistant Ed) at Bannockburn.
Silly, I know. But I'm a sucker for a spot of bloodthirsty heritage.
Maybe I should join the Sealed Knot.
I know, in my heart of hearts that a monarchy – even a constitutional, neutered one – is utterly indefensible in moral terms.
Why should one person be born to rule and another be born to live on a council estate with no prospects?
Since when should we entrust our affairs to fate?
It's like choosing a bank manager to look after your cash purely because he went to the right school rather than has the right qualifications or a modicum of financial acumen.
But at the same time, my overriding feeling is if it ain't broken, don't fix it.
And I'd rather have a king or queen waving harmlessly from a gilded carriage than a president scheming in a concrete bunker.
Secondly, working on the assumption that babies are generally a good thing – they certainly look cool – we turn to the issue of the name.
Personally, if I was William or Kate I'd be inclined to think that King Ian or Queen Iana have a certain ring to them.
It's a solid name, of Gaelic-derivation that suggests a strong, dependable and slightly sexy character.
No? OK, then if I'm being totally honest, if it's a boy I'd love to see a King Arthur.
How awesome would that be to be led one day by the once and future King Arthur?
We could have a coronation ceremony where he had to pull a sword from a stone, fight Lancelot for the hand of Guinevere or behead a dragon or two.
If it's a girl, how about Boadicea? She'd be a fearsome sight riding around London in a chariot looking for Romans to behead.
Personally, if I was the Royal Family with my (oversized) ears to the ground and seeking popular approval, I'd do the complete opposite of anything that dreadful Katie Hopkins woman said.
With that in mind I'd name the blue-blooded infant Prince or Princess Charmaine Chantelle Chardonnay Tyler Mountbatten Windsor.
That should shake the establishment up a bit.
They could replace the crown jewels with a few sovereign rings and a necklace from Argos.
So, good luck to William and Kate, they seem surprisingly grounded people, despite everything. I wish them well.
I'll await the arrival of mini-monarch with a twinge of patriotic interest – and look forward to many more years of subjugation under a family I never voted for, knowing my scrambled beliefs make no logical sense whatsoever.
God, it's good to be British.
