I’ll say one thing in favour of the recent tide of tacky royalism and rain-soaked bunting: at least the Union Jack isn’t pink. So if I wanted to join in with the flag-waving fun and get my little girl a Union Jack tshirt, say, at least it wouldn’t be… oh, wait:
Ho hum. OK, so I’ve seen one or two refreshing changes, such as an uncharacteristically non-sexist advert from Pampers:
That child’s wearing pink… but in an active pose!
Active princes and princesses? You mean princesses can be active too? Fantastic! Well, it’s a start, anyway.
Sadly this was a bit of an outlier, as most of the Jubilee tat aimed at kids seemed to be just another excuse to sell the ‘pink princess’ dream (or should that be nightmare?) to little girls. Here’s a classic from Vertbaudet:
“Choice of very playful fancy dress outfits”! Unfortunately the choice was made for you before you were even born: male or female. “They are great for capturing your childs’ [sic] imagination,” apparently: great for reinforcing gender roles, more like. The knight is in classic Crusader colours; the Princess, of course, is in pink. Because that’s what Princesses wear. Princesses like Kate Middleton:
No, wait. Princesses like… Princess Beatrice:
Ah. Princess Eugenie?
Hmm. Let’s go back a bit… ah yes, the people’s fairytale princess, Princess Di:
Well, this is embarrassing. Perhaps we need a more mature princess… Princess Margaret?
Or maybe we need to travel a bit further afield… Princess Maxima of the Netherlands?
She’s not a crown princess, though. Perhaps Swedish Crown Princess Victoria can save the day for Pink Princesses:
OK… I give up. Happy Diamond Jubilee, everybody!