At last, a prince worthy of the American Revolution

As I watched the Internet overheat with excitement about the birth of Meghan and Harry's new baby, I found myself mystified by the entire kerfuffle. Had we been magically transported back to the time of King James I?

Did we still believe that the monarch was nothing less than God's representative on earth?

Although I'm sure the baby is adorable, he is seventh in line to the throne and has about as much chance of being king as I do. Naturally, I thought about the one group that always comes to mind when royal-mania strikes America - the founding fathers.

I couldn't help but imagine their disapproving frowns at our insatiable curiosity about all things royal. To put it in contemporary terms, we are like the wallflower at the high school prom who gazes wistfully at the king and queen as they dance off into a brighter and better future than we will ever enjoy. And yet it has always been thus.

When high school students study the American Revolution, they are taught about the demands of colonists for no taxation without representation, but the Revolution was not just about politics. It was also about raw emotion. Even up to a few months before the Declaration of Independence, Americans felt enormous pride in their British identity. They believed they lived under the best constitution and government in the world. And when they talked about their rights, they meant their rights as Englishmen. Their highest aspiration was to be accepted as equals within the British empire, not to be Americans.

And so, when the British ministry made it clear that they did not view their backward American cousins as equals - certainly not as political equals and, frankly, not as social equals either - Americans reacted like a jilted lover.

Even Thomas Jefferson with all of his enlightened refinement could not keep his emotions in check. In his draft for the Declaration, he slipped into the overwrought language of a heart-broken teenager, writing, "These facts have given the last stab to agonizing affection, and manly spirit bids us to renounce forever these unfeeling brethren" (words the Continental Congress wisely cut from the final draft).

American reverence for all things British was amplified to even more absurd heights when it came to the king. One of the reasons Americans took so long to declare independence is that they were convinced King Georg III was simply being misled and that, once he became aware of the real situation, the yoke of oppression would surely be lifted.

It took the unadulterated scorn of Thomas Paine (throwing shade, as the kids would say) to wake Americans up to the fact that a hereditary monarch, even an English one, had no special claim to virtue or even good sense. As he acerbically wrote, "A French bastard, landing with an armed banditti, and establishing himself king of England against the consent of the natives, is in plain terms a very paltry rascally original. It certainly hath no divinity in it."

And so, we had a revolution and threw off the shackles of British tyranny, including our blind reverence for all things English. Except - as I watched the commentary pile up about Harry and Meghan's baby - it was apparent that we didn't quite get over our feelings about Great Britain or the monarchy.

After thinking about it, though, I realized that I was looking at this in the wrong way. Prince Harry married an American after all. When the Revolution occurred, it was inconceivable that a royal would marry any American - let alone a multiracial commoner who made her living in that most scandalous of professions, acting! Perhaps, after all this time, we no longer have to reprise our roles as scorned country bumpkins or haughty aristocrats.

And the excitement over an American commoner having a baby with a British prince is not cause for concern but cause for celebration. The work of the American Revolution - at least in this case - is truly complete.

Andrew Trees, of Lake Forest, is a visiting assistant professor at Roosevelt University and the author of "The Founding Fathers and the Politics of Character."