I’m watching a documentary, and a sentence confuses me.

Births in royal families were always packed out, it was an honour, and also people there to make sure that the right baby came and was kept. So no stunt babies were brought in.

It would be appreciated if you could help me understand this phase. Thanks!

  • 1
    It makes sense. Bringing in body doubles would enable one to keep the true heirs safe, but would give a greater risk of identity mix-up / fraud. – Edwin Ashworth Apr 6 '18 at 9:10
  • 1
    I guess the purpose of a 'stunt baby' is to make sure the 'real baby' is safe. E.g. displaying a fake stunt baby in public instead of the 'real baby'. It seems out of respect to the people present ('packed out' event, an honour) in this case no stunt babies were used. – alexsms Apr 6 '18 at 10:40
  • 2
    'Stunt' seems wrong in this context unless said baby is to be hurled around the place. 'Body double' would be (one sincerely hopes) more accurate. – Nigel J Apr 6 '18 at 12:32
  • 2
    James Edward Stuart, the son of King James II by his second wife, was famously suspected of being an impostor en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Francis_Edward_Stuart . However 'stunt baby' seems a rather odd expression. – Kate Bunting Apr 7 '18 at 9:21
  • 1
    "Stunt baby" sounds innovative and perhaps disrespectful but so what? Any detailed reading of history should show a huge part of being royal in the first place is securing the succession. If you'll excuse the pun, history is littered with infertile kings or barren queens borrowing - prolly buying - other people's babies to give provide a total heir. Also as others have pointed out, a substituted - for which, read "stunt" - baby could of course serve as a decoy to protect the real heir from assassins. – Robbie Goodwin Apr 7 '18 at 17:49

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.