Meghan and Harry: Royal Baby

[Coconut Flan]

7 hours ago, adidas said:

I read once that over 90% of first babies are born at the 41 week mark, so hopefully we’ll hear some news soon. That’s if it’s true that she was due last Sunday.

That keeps getting repeated a lot and I wondered where it came from because it hasn't proven true in my admittedly limited life experience.

Quote

So why the rumor about first time moms going late? There are articles all over the web that say the average first time mother goes eight days overdue and doesn't have her baby until 41 weeks, 1 day. I say hold off, people. There's only one study that suggested this median: The length of uncomplicated human gestation (Mittendorf et al). The study was simply a record of a few hundred women at one private practice. Only 31 of those women were first time mothers. The study itself calls for further research. You can read it here.

 

[Angelic83]

Thank you for the clarification @Coconut Flan Another reason to read the research and not just look at a headline of a research. I just hope we will hav3 a healthy royal baby soon

[adidas]

48 minutes ago, Angelic83 said:

Thank you for the clarification @Coconut Flan Another reason to read the research and not just look at a headline of a research. I just hope we will hav3 a healthy royal baby soon

The book I read it in is called The Thinking Woman’s Guide to a Better Birth - not ‘just a headline’ 

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11394.The_Thinking_Woman_s_Guide_to_a_Better_Birth

But thanks @Coconut Flan , I had no idea it was based on 31 primiparas out of 500. That’s disappointing. The rest of the book was excellent.

Edited May 5, 2019 by adidas

[hoipolloi]

As always, follow the money, which in this case suggests that Meghan has already given birth:

Quote

 

British bookmakers are suspending betting on the due date of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex's royal baby, amid speculation that the child has already been born.

Paddy Power and Coral halted bets after a number of customers placed money on dates that had already passed. Both have also noticed a surge in betting on the child being a girl named Ivy.

"These people are clearly talking to someone, who is talking to someone else," Lee Price, Paddy Power's head off PR, told CNN.

He added that customers have often led the way when it comes to Harry and Meghan's announcements, recalling that bookers had correctly guessed the couple's engagement date before Clarence House announced it.

 

 

[Kangaroo]

Recent examples of betting being "suspended" on royal babies due to a high influx of bets:

- The baby was already born and is called Allegra

- Meghan was having twins caused this after they announced the pregnancy

- Flurry of bets on girl caused it to be suspended for a while

- When Louis was born, the name Albert caused betting to be suspended.

On top of that it pretty much happened with all of Catherine's pregnancies and births about the sex and the name

Fairly sure the bookies just do this to drum up attention amongst themselves.

 

[Angelic83]

43 minutes ago, adidas said:

The book I read it in is called The Thinking Woman’s Guide to a Better Birth - not ‘just a headline’ 

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11394.The_Thinking_Woman_s_Guide_to_a_Better_Birth

But thanks @Coconut Flan , I had no idea it was based on 31 primiparas out of 500. That’s disappointing. The rest of the book was excellent.

I didn’t mean to imply that you just read the headlines. It is just that I sometimes read something that said it based on this or that study. This proves that sometimes it’s good to dig a little deeper. 

The book sounds interesting definitly going to put it in my to read list

 

 

 

[hoipolloi]

20 minutes ago, Kangaroo said:

Fairly sure the bookies just do this to drum up attention amongst themselves.

Not being a bettor nor yet a gambler of any sort, I'll take your word for it!

Nonetheless, they do strike me as a bunch who don't lose sight for a second of what they stand to gain or lose in any particular bet. If they suspected that the fix was actually in for a birth date, I can see them restricting bets on it.

Edited May 5, 2019 by hoipolloi

[Jigsaw3]

There's going to be a public birth certificate issued at some point. That's a legal document that has to be correct. For that, if no other reason, they won't lie about when this baby comes.  If they haven't announced she's in labour, she's not in labour. Any birth announcement will be prompt (if not immediate -- if the baby is born in the middle of the night, it's likely to be the next day.)

If there was a mistake made, it was announcing the actual due date ("late April/early May") instead of obfuscating a bit and going with "early May".

[viii]

And here we go!! Meghan’s in labour! 

(They probably announced it as the baby was crowning, let’s be honest LOL. I suspect baby has already arrived) 

Edited May 6, 2019 by viii

[tabitha2]

Most likely the child is born or else she has been in labor for 10 or 12 hours now.  Could be but I doubt it. 

[viii]

A woman can easily be in labor for 12+ hours, especially with her first child. 

However, Buckingham Palace said an announcement will be made soon, which is a pretty good indication that baby has arrived. Plus they announced 12ish hours after she went into labor, which buys them time to enjoy being a new family before announcing to the entire world. 

[viii]

It’s a boy! I’m so surprised, I genuinely thought girl. 

[tabitha2]

Again. People were so convinced. With no basis. They even said they themselves did not know.  Never made sense to me. Welcome little Earl of Dumbarton!

Edited May 6, 2019 by tabitha2

[viii]

Oh girl, there was a lot of foundation there to assume they were having a girl. Her baby shower was pink, one of her closest friends referred to the baby as female, and Harry mentioned several times he was hoping for a daughter (which is a dick move to me unless you’re sure). I know you’re a big believer in ~Windsor men have sons first!!~ but there was a lot of reason to believe baby was a girl. 

Either way, congrats to the couple. Can’t wait to find out the name!

[BlessaYourHeart]

9 minutes ago, viii said:

It’s a boy! I’m so surprised, I genuinely thought girl. 

Where are you getting this information? There’s nothing on the twitter page for Buckingham Palace 

 

nevermind it was just updated

Edited May 6, 2019 by BlessaYourHeart

[JustEnough]

https://www.royal.uk/duchess-sussex-has-been-delivered-son-0

I can't wait to hear the name. 

[tabitha2]

11 minutes ago, viii said:

Oh girl, there was a lot of foundation there to assume they were having a girl. Her baby shower was pink, one of her closest friends referred to the baby as female, and Harry mentioned several times he was hoping for a daughter (which is a dick move to me unless you’re sure). I know you’re a big believer in ~Windsor men have sons first!!~ but there was a lot of reason to believe baby was a girl. 

Either way, congrats to the couple. Can’t wait to find out the name!

 

I personally think people and media really really wanted it to be a girl for whatever reasons and saw what they wanted to see.  We never got actual photos of the shower did we? Or was it questionable news reports. Now Harry probably did want a girl and was probably having an excited running off at the mouth moment. He said he did not know and we have no reason to doubt him. I am sure he fell in love with his boy at first sight and now could not imagine wanting anything else  

But it’s moot now. I want to know his name l!

Edited May 6, 2019 by tabitha2

[VelociRapture]

Congratulations to the new parents on the safe arrival of their little boy! Here’s hoping Meghan, Harry, and the baby are able to bond privately over the next couple of days as they were hoping.  

[tabitha2]

Charlotte is still the lone Princess out LOL. At least she has all of Anne’s granddaughters to girl group with

[anjulibai]

Good for them! Harry looks so happy. 

[viii]

So baby was born at 5:26 am... and they announced at 1:50 pm that she was in labor. That seems weird to me. I get that they said they'd announce when she was in labor, but baby was already well and born by then. I wonder if there was a leak and that's why they announced she was in labor to give themselves time to announce. 

[tabitha2]

Keeping  the location secret makes no sense  unless she had the baby at the hospital and not the Home birth. 

Edited May 6, 2019 by tabitha2

[Kangaroo]

They never announced she was in labour. The first announcement was on their Instagram that she gave birth in the early hours of the morning, there was never anything before this. That occurred at around 2pm.

Likely she went into labour in the evening, and so a public announcement was not made as it went against protocol (I believe they do not announce things overnight). Obviously she gave birth very early in the morning so they never had the opportunity to release the statement. Instead they simply waited a few hours and announced the birth.

Edited May 6, 2019 by Kangaroo

[BlondeIdol]

I’ve been thinking it was going to be a boy these past few weeks. Seems like everyone I know IRL has been having a boys recently. Congrats to the parents! Can’t wait for the name and pictures. 

 

[viii]

4 minutes ago, Kangaroo said:

They never announced she was in labour. The first announcement was on their Instagram that she gave birth in the early hours of the morning, there was never anything before this. That occurred at around 2pm.

Likely she went into labour in the evening, and so a public announcement was not made as it went against protocol (I believe they do not announce things overnight). Obviously she gave birth very early in the morning so they never had the opportunity to release the statement. Instead they simply waited a few hours and announced the birth.

That's not true. Buckingham Palace confirmed to the media that Meghan went into labor in the early hours of the morning and an announcement would be made soon. We now know that baby was already here, but when they originally announced it, it seemed like she was still in labor.