Why my baby isn't "the most beautiful"

Chris's Aunt Joan (who is beautiful in her own right) commented on the last post, "You should have entered her in Regis & Kelly's most beautiful baby contest. She would have won, hands down!" Aunt Jo, we did submit her (picture we used to the left) - in 2006! And she didn't win. I'll give you a moment to recover.

When I first heard about this contest a year ago (we submitted her in January 2006), I actually - with every fiber of my being - really believed that Annika had a shot at it. I'm comfortable with admitting that I have, ahem, rose-colored glasses when it comes to my Tiny, but I knew that I could take a pretty good picture of her cuteness and capture it well enough to make a compelling case for world domination, ergh, I mean for "the most beautiful baby." In fact, not only did I hold a mini photo shoot after I learned of this contest, I also perused my arsenal of the cutest photos I had. In addition, I turned the images into a slideshow set to music (James Blunt's "Beautiful" - no one has ever accused me of being subtle).

I sent the picture waiting to be contacted. And nothing. I went on the site a week or so later and found that the top 5 finalists had been named...and Annika wasn't on the list. The travesty. The injustice.

I have a theory as to why she didn't make the cut. When the finalists were posted on the site, I was literally quite shocked. Now, I'm not going to contest the cuteness of the finalists, they were pretty cute. And you have to assume they'll include a fair mix of boys to girls - i.e. 3/2 or 2/3 ratio, so Annika's chances were already nearly cut in half. Also, the contest's rules ask for "babies" 6 to 48 months. Now, I am no pediatrician, but a 48-month old baby is way freaking older than a 6-month old. And they look a lot different - more hair, more defined features, more lithe bodies. In fact, when I think 'baby', my mental cutoff is probably about 24 months (that means 2 years to non-parents). Basically, comparing an actual baby to a grown child will net strange (and not necessarily accurate) results. I think a 4-year old "baby" is stupid. Sorry. I said it.

Also, I wanted to note that although they leave the ultimate "winner" to the viewers (through an online vote of the final five) I don't think it's a coincidence that the winner in 2006 was a little boy was definitely not the cutest of the bunch but just happened to take the best magazine cover shot. (Part of the prize is to be on the cover of Parents Magazine). I'm not crying foul or anything...but come on!

Anyway, the ultimate winner wound up being a little boy who was probably 2 and a half. He was cute, I guess. They had only one "real" baby - a 10-month old little girl that looked exactly like Annika. I swear she did. And while I watched the live broadcast of this very special episode of parental competition gone wrong, I also noted that this 10-month old had none of the personality that Annika had at her age at the time (8 months). Fine, this little girl was cute. But beautiful? Beauty is more than red cheeks.

I realized at that time that this contest was ridiculous and certainly not a measure of anyone's worth. (I might have known that before I entered her, but that's not the point). Annika is beautiful for so many reasons that a digital image would never - could never - capture her sense of humor, her fear of balloons or her sticky fingers. Everything that goes into Annika is beautiful, and I am much more beautiful for having her in my life. Regis and Kelly are stupid! Yeah, I said it.

So, perhaps you ask - is this why you didn't enter her this year? Heck no! I hadn't heard about it! I told you no one ever tells me anything.

Annika in 2008!