Thursday, 11 April 2019

Buckingham Palace Release Update on Baby Sussex!

As anticipated, Buckingham Palace released an update on plans for the birth of Baby Sussex this morning, confirming Harry and Meghan have taken the "personal decision" to keep the arrival of their first child as private as possible. "The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are very grateful for the goodwill they have received from people throughout the United Kingdom and around the world as they prepare to welcome their baby. Their Royal Highnesses have taken a personal decision to keep the plans around the arrival of their baby private. The Duke and Duchess look forward to sharing the exciting news with everyone once they have had an opportunity to celebrate privately as a new family."



Let's do a run down of what we do know.... Reporters were informed (via direct contact with the Palace and I expect a separate operational note included with the above press release) the media will be informed when the Duchess goes into labour and subsequently told when Baby Sussex is born. Here's a look at the statement which was released after the Duchess of Cambridge gave birth to Prince Louis last April. I imagine we'll see something very similar.


When will see our first glimpse of Baby Sussex? We won't see the traditional photos on the steps of the hospital, however reporters were told the couple are planning a small photocall at Windsor about two days after baby arrives. I understand a media pool will be present and images will be shared with photo agencies and news outlets around the world. It's a good compromise; Harry and Meghan will be able to enjoy their first days as parents in private, but the photocall will ensure the public are a part of the celebrations. The images will be used time and time again throughout the child's life and remembered as his//her official introduction.


People reports:

'Royal fans will get to see the happy couple with their new baby, however, soon after the birth. Within a few days after welcoming their first child, Meghan and Harry will take part in a small photo op — with one reporter, one photographer and one TV camera — with their new baby on the grounds of Windsor Castle, the palace announced.'

Is it possible Harry and Meghan will elect to share a personal snap before the official photocall? Below, a salient point from Rebecca English.


I think the couple grappled with striking the balance between their desire for privacy and their wish to acknowledge the enormous public interest. It's a difficult situation because they are full-time members of the royal family; they will be central players during Charles' reign and eventually William's. When the Prince of Wales ascends to the throne, it's very much going to be a case of Charles, Camilla, William, Kate, Harry and Meghan in key senior roles, representing the BRF at home and abroad and undertaking the monumental task of modernising the monarchy and sustaining the growth of the institution in the 21st century whilst ensuring they stay true to time honoured traditions. Yet, it is highly unlikely, the Sussex children will have any future roles as working royals. Charles' plans for a streamlined monarchy are well documented. I believe they have been discussed at length within the family. Someday in the future, we'll have the Cambridges, Sussexes, Prince George, Princess Charlotte, Prince Louis and their spouses as working royals. Although Baby Sussex will be seventh-in-line when he/she is born, that position will change with the passage of time and it makes perfect sense for Harry and Meghan to establish the fact their children's lives will be private from the moment they are born.


There's no plans for Baby Sussex to be a Prince or Princess, or hold HRH status, and I don't expect that will change. More from Town & Country:

'According to King George V’s 1917 decree, only the oldest son of the Prince of Wales’s oldest son (so Prince George) was entitled to be styled His Royal Highness and a Prince.
But in December of 2012, the Queen issued new Letters Patent, which declared that all of William and Kate's children would hold the title of HRH and would be styled as princes and princesses.
“The Queen has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm dated 31 December 2012 to declare that all the children of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales should have and enjoy the style, title and attribute of Royal Highness with the titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their Christian names or with such other titles of honour,” reads the official statement.
At this point, that ruling does not apply to Prince Harry's children, and so if it's a boy, he will be styled as Earl of Dumbarton, and if it's a girl, she will be styled as a Lady similar to how Lady Louise's title is currently styled.
That said, the Queen could step in and issue Harry's child a title. But we'll just have to wait and see.'

Royal Central spoke to historian Marlene Koenig:

'As Royal Historian, Marlene Koenig pointed out “In 1999, when Prince Edward married, it was announced on the morning that his children would be styled as children of an earl.”
Adding on “No announcement about children came on Harry’s wedding, which leads me to think that there will be a Letters Patent before the first child to make sure the children are royal.”
According to Koenig, “there is a loophole. The Letters Patent does not refer to what would happen if great grandchildren become grandchildren in the male line.” For that reason is why Koenig is sure The Queen will issue them before the birth. Should the children be born after Charles is king, those children will be styled as grandchildren of the monarch.
If Her Majesty does not issue Letters Patent before the birth of the Harry and Meghan’s first child “the eldest son will be the Earl of Dumbarton. Daughters will be Lady Christian name and younger sons as Lord Christian name,” further explains Koenig.'

Interestingly, there's been several stories in recent days suggesting Meghan hopes to have a home birth. It's important to stress there's been no official word on this. Rebecca English reports:

'Meghan is expected to have a midwife-led home birth at Frogmore Cottage in Windsor, the new home she shares with Prince Harry on the Berkshire estate. She wants to follow in the footsteps of the Queen, who was born at the Mayfair home of her grandparents and gave birth to all four of her children at either Buckingham Palace or Clarence House.
Sources stressed earlier this week that Harry and Meghan, who are expecting their first child within weeks, have not ruled out a hospital delivery because a woman having a baby over the age of 35 is at an increased risk of premature birth or the need for an epidural or caesarean.
But a friend in America said the duchess – who still practices yoga daily and has 'sailed' through her pregnancy – is in extremely good health and sees no reason why she could not enjoy a safe delivery in the privacy of the cottage. 'It is her favoured choice,' the source said, 'but it obviously depends on how things are nearer the time.' 

My first thought when I heard the news was how fitting it is for the official photos of Baby Sussex to be taken at Windsor. Harry and Meghan have many happy memories of spending time there during the early days of their relationship. They chose Windsor for their official engagement photoshoot and of course were married at St George's chapel. They are now settling into their home, Frogmore Cottage, on the estate. I imagine the christening will be held at St George's in June or July.


This is expected to be the latest official update before Meghan goes into labour. It could be any day now...

308 comments:

  1. Eeeeek! It all feels so real now! Thanks for the updates, Charlotte :) I thought she’d already had the baby & I missed it lol

    ReplyDelete
  2. thank you for your update and your general discourse. I think also they have tried to strike a balance and i think their decision has achieved that. Wishing them a safe delivery and a healthy mum and baby. Not long now to wait.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I expect hours of discussions went into this decision, it is such a difficult balance to strike. And good for them on making the decision that they consider to be best for them.

    It would be fascinating though to see if it plays outs the way they invision. The argument is always that by giving limited access, the market for unauthorized photos are limited. The Cambridges have shown that it is not always true, by giving very little access to their children, now the Sussexes are taking it a step further.

    I also think this is a very strong statement of intent from the Sussexes. That they are working royals, but BabySussex is not. The public might have a claim on Harry and Meghan but not on their children. So we might have to adjust expectations when it comes to BabySussex joining royal tours, being seen at the Trooping, even things like photos on his/her birthday. Consistency is the best way to manage expectations.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're right Rachel... it will be intriguing to see how things unfold over the years!

      Delete
    2. I think there is 100% chance that yes, we'll see them at events like the Trooping of the Color. Peter and Autumn's children go to the Trooping, and they are waaaaay lower than Meghan and Harry's children will be, don't have an HRH or any hereditary titles (like baby Sussex is likely to have - Earl or Lady/Lord or perhaps HRH when Charles is king). So, I think we'll definitely see the Sussex Children on the balcony once they are old enough.

      I also think we'll see them on tour as I doubt the Sussexes would leave them at home. Maybe not doing any official events, but IMO, we'll see them.

      Delete
  4. its good that they have some quality time with the baby Sussex before the going to present him or her in public oh Charlotte to we have Instagram

    ReplyDelete
  5. I was almost certain that Meghan had the baby this week and that we would get a surprise announcement this week. That's just me speculating given the silence from the Sussexes. I definately think that the baby will arrive before month-end though. I'm glad that Harry and Meghan have opted for a private birth, wherever it may be and I wish them a safe delivery for both mom and baby. Hope we don't have to wait too long now Lol!

    Here's to baby Sussex!

    Love Avee in SA

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Avee I would love that...I wonder will the baby have red hair

      Delete
    2. Theresa, it is highly unlikely that the baby will have red hair. Less that 2% of the world's population are natural redheads. As a grandmother of a girl with flaming red hair I did some research. In order for a baby to have red hair, both parents have to carry the gene, since it’s a recessive trait. So if you’re a ginger and you conceive with a ginger, odds are, your kids will be gingers, too. If only one parent has red hair, but the other is a carrier, the baby’s chances are 50/50. If neither of the parents are redheads, but both are carriers of the gene, there is a one in four chance of a fiery-haired child. And, sorry to say, if one parent is not a carrier even though the other is, there is no chance of a ginger baby.

      Red hair is strong on Harry's side, as found in Princess Diana's siblings. Obviously the gene is present on Charles side, because it takes the recessive gene on both sides to produce a redheaded child. We do not know that much about Meghan's gene pool. There is likely no ginger gene on the African-American side of Meghan's family...not sure about her father's side. Natural redheads are extremely rare, and the chances of the Suxxex baby being a ginger is highly unlikely.

      Delete
    3. It still makes this future royal baby so precious. We are looking forward to baby Sussex.

      Delete
    4. As a natural redhead myself, I certainly know how rare my hair color is. Neither of my parents have red hair, but both were carriers of the recessive gene. My sister has jet black hair and my brother has blond. The interesting thing is that even though there have been carriers on both sides of my family, I have been the only family member with red hair for several generations. The curly texture of my hair also seems to be very recessive. No one in my family has naturally curly hair, and again it has been several generations since anyone did.
      I've learned that my red curly hair and blue eyes combination is very rare in general.

      Delete
    5. Sarah, my redheaded granddaughter also has naturally curly hair. Her twin brother has straight, dark brown hair, as do her other brother and sister. We celebrate our unique, curly haired, redhead and she gets comments and compliments wherever she goes. You too are one of nature's very special people.

      Delete
    6. I've had curly hair since I was born, like really curly hair and neither of my parents have like mine. If it weren't for my grandparents having curly hair themselves, I would have explored the adoption theory a long time ago Lol! Sometimes babies take after their grandparents more than their parents and only start to look like their parents in their teens. Either way, this will be a cute little one :)

      Delete
    7. Sarah from NC,
      I love red hair. Mine is brown and straight, darn it. My father has beautiful blue eyes, but sadly none of his three children inherited them. You won the jackpot, in my πŸ‘€!
      Marianne in Montana😊

      Delete
    8. Avee- I must confess I had similar thoughts. The Palace press release leaves open the possibility that the baby has indeed been born and that the parents are having a quiet family time at this moment. I am not sure why the couple waited so long to share this information of their plan. Earlier release may have reduced press speculation and mis-information. Perhaps there was a conflict. Actually, it came from BP but Sussex PR is now under that umbrella. And, again, we have authoritative reports from "friends."
      I wondered about the four-day absence just before the completed move to FC was announced. It was reported as a respite, second "babymoon," while awaiting the completion of work on their new home. The accounts of the details of that country-retreat stay were a little too detailed and fanciful to my mind to be believable.
      From the beginning I thought this birth would not follow the royal path of the past two generations--no Lindo wing steps appearance or Lindo Wing birth, for that matter. I think they may follow Kate's plan of home photos of the newborn. I have always felt we would not hear of the birth until the family were home. I cited security concerns, as well as privacy reasons. I doubt we will have a formal announcement of Meghan's being in active labor because that would alert the press and make a nightmare of the scene around Windsor and heighten security concerns. It would defeat the attempt to have a private experience.
      I won't rule out hints on the Sussex IG site. ;) I also feel we will see the first photos there, in spite of the apparent plan for a limited photo call at Windsor. I know the Cambridge's choices to have family take official-type photos and to use only Mr. Jackson as photographer, for example, were not received well by some. I may be in error--but I believe the European and Scandinavian royals have been publishing more family-taken versus professional photos of their children since Kate started taking and publishing her family photos.

      Interestingly enough, Frogmore House, across the grounds from FC, will be open to the public the end of May.

      Delete
    9. Laura and FilbertSheep:

      It made me smile to read your comments. While I love my hair now, it was hard to like it as a child and teenager, because I was bullied constantly for it. I remember in 6th grade (aged 12), a boy had been bullying me about my hair for half of the school year. I did my best to ignore him, but it hurt. Then the final straw was when he took a lighter and lit my hair on fire, burning 9 inches of it. If it wasn't for a teacher witnessing the fast moving event, and running to pour a bucket of water on my head, I cringe to think what could have happened. Thankfully, the thickness of my hair kept my body or scalp from being burned, but the 9 inches of hair were scorched quickly because of the course texture. It was like setting a broom on fire. I was traumatized by that for a very long time. Even now, when I see flames, my mind experiences flashbacks to that day. The boy was ultimately expelled, but I continued to feel that my hair was something bad for years after the incident.

      Oddly though, after my hair was burned, the curly texture became even more curly.

      I began to change my mind about my curly red hair during college. That's where I met my husband, who is also a redhead, and he helped me come to appreciate and value my hair's uniqueness.

      Delete
    10. You never know what genes will choose to show themselves or when. My niece is half Nigerian and half Irish (my family side). My grandmother had red hair but none of my parents generation nor mine do. My niece however has cappuccino tone skin, freckles and a head full of gorgeous auburn curls.

      Delete
    11. If it is a little girl with curly red hair they should name her Annie. ;) For both Anne of Green Gables and the Annie of Broadway fame.
      By the way, what a horrific childhood memory! So glad things worked out, Sarah.

      Delete
    12. Oh Sarah from NC, what a horrific story that happened in your childhood. I am so sorry and am glad that through the kindness of your husband you are now at peace with your unique and very special colouring. I don't know if times have changed, or living in Canada is different, but my granddaughter is never teased and people tell her all the time how beautiful her hair is. A friend, who is a hairdresser, tells me that many people changing their hair colour want to go red. So you are the envy of many. I hope that horrid boy back in your school days has lived to regret the awful thing he did to you. Celebrate that you are one of less than 2% of the world's population with your beautiful ginger hair.

      Delete
    13. Laura,

      Thank you. I do think there is a slight difference being a redhead in the US versus being one in Canada or Europe. Being a natural redhead in the States is rarer than it is in Europe especially, and the negative stereotypes abound. The only two redheads I ever saw in literature or in movies growing up were "Anne of Green Gables" and "Annie." Even now, redheads still feature very little in the literature and entertainment industries, which saddens me.
      While there are some people who want to become redheads and subsequently color their hair, many of them ultimately do not keep that color, especially when they realize it is difficult to match natural red hair in a bottle. During graduate school while working on my master's degree, I had a close friend who was determined to have her hair colored to be red like mine. She was so excited until she saw the finished result. The first thing she said was "It looks fake. What happened?" The hairdresser tried to explain that artificial red coloring is difficult to match to the real thing, and my friend was very upset. I felt bad for her because her expectations had been so hopeful, but after having her hair color returned to it's natural state, she was able to laugh about the whole thing later. It was a reminder that all of us need to learn to like ourselves the way we were made. It is a hard thing to do sometimes, especially when others are critical. But, we have to find a way to ignore all of that noise and criticism, and be our authentic selves in body, mind, and spirit. Learning to do that and becoming better at it is a lifelong process.

      Delete
    14. Sarah from NC, you are secure in who you are, you like yourself and your hair....that is all that matters. Yes, "fake" red hair is difficult to achieve. For me the dead giveaway is the skin tone. Most natural redheads have pale skin and freckle easily. If people dye their hair red, but their skin is a few shades darker than pale, it is a dead giveaway, that the red hair is not natural.

      I share this favourite photo with you:

      https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/6s0wzg/stunning_photo_with_6_redhead_kids_and_horses_in/

      Delete
  6. I'm very glad they will be treating their birth as a private family moment and there won't be a media circus. No woman should stand on the steps of a hospital hours after giving birth in full makeup; those hours after birth are precious.

    I do wonder though if one day the status of Baby Sussex will change; one day Harry and Meghan's children will be the nieces/nephews of the King and maybe it will seem appropriate for them to have a royal title at that time?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you Penny, birth is a private matter. However, I must say that I felt slightly deflated when I saw that they won't do it the William/Kate way. I loved the excitement of keeping a royal watch outside the hospital doors via Sky News Lol! But alas, I respect their decision :)

      Delete
    2. Avee, I understand too but I'm soooooo disappointed. There is something magical about waiting for the doors to open and out come the couple with the baby. Not too much in the world is thrilling anymore but that ranks right up there.

      Delete
  7. Just curious. How are Prince Andrew’s children then titled Princesses?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because Andrew was the son of the monarch at time. Harry is grandson of the monarch. By the time Charles is king the should be Prince or princess if Harry and meghan want them to

      Delete
    2. They are the grandchildren of the monarch in the male line.
      BabySussex will be a greatgrandchild of the monarch. Hence no provision in the 1917 LP’s.

      Delete
    3. Carrie—Charlotte only quoted the newest part of the letters of patent that apply to the Sussex and Cambridge children since that was the focus of her discussion. My understanding is as follows—it may need some correcting 😁.

      The full letters of patent say that the children of the monarch receieve HRH status as do the grandchildren of the monarch’s male heirs. So Charles, Anne, Andrew, and edears are all HRHs, and the children of Charles, Andrew, and Edward could bear the title, but Anne’s children could not. That is why her children do not have royal titles—they declined a title for Mark Philips when they married, and Anne’s title cannot be inherited. It was announced when the Wessexes married that they chose that their future children would not have the HRH designation but would inherit the titles that come from his being named the Earl of Wessex—hence the Lady Louise and Viscount Sevren designations for them. No provision was made in the original letters of patent for great-grandchildren of the monarch, so the queen issued those provisions for the Cambridge family when Kate was expecting George, and that’s the part that is quoted in the blog. That’s my understanding anyway!

      Delete
    4. The male-line grandchildren of the monarch are entitled to use royal titles.

      Delete
    5. I am confused too, because by the logic of him being son of the monarch, then Edwards kids should have been HRH too. Maybe Edward refused.
      In any event I am glad they are doing this. They are not direct heirs to the throne. As much hysteria surrounds them, it’s not good optics to overshine any body else. I think this wasn’t “Meghan just doing the opposite of Kate” I think it’s a wise PR move too.
      History will always remember them, but pictures of Kate and Wills with their kids will hold weight hundreds of years from now while the Sussex’s will not be remembered as such. (Do we know a lot about siblings of monarchs of the distant past? Not too too much)
      So I think it’s a good balance of satisfying the public’s desire to see them (and even though the child is not a working royal, it will still benefit from the taxpayers in some capacity so there needs to be SOME leeway in showing pictures or doing events with their child) and also letting the child be private and for them to be private as a family.
      Long story short this is I think a perfect mix.

      Delete
    6. LP was issued for Prince Charles and Princess Anne to be HRHs from birth because they were the King's grandchildren on the female line. By the time Prince Andres and Prince Edward were born Elizabeth was already the Queen so the two Princes were automatically HRHs.

      As for William/Kate children, if LP was not issued, only George would've been HRH at birth.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous at 16:25, you are correct, Louise and James are entitled to use prince/princess but Sophie and Edward choose not to. I think they will lead relatively normal lives.

      Delete
  8. Meghan said she's due late April or even early May, do you think she's likely to go into labor next week or after Easter? I will be traveling before Easter so I hope I will be able to follow the news if the baby comes earlier. But she said late April?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's not something anyone can predict. Babies come when they are ready to come, and first babies are often late. Meghan said late April or early May.

      Delete
    2. I firmly believe she was fibbing when she said late April/early May, purposely being vague to keep the due date private.

      Delete
    3. Late April/early May is still vague. It doesn't mean she was giving a decoy answer. She never gave a due date and that is something people are forgetting. A due date means a specific day. By saying late April/early May, they are still maintaining privacy. There have been quite a few commenters here who thought she would give birth in February or March, and that was obviously not the case. I choose to take Meghan at her word, but babies come when they are ready. The waiting requires patience, not speculation.

      Delete
    4. "Late April/ early May" is as precise as you can communicate the due date without saying the precise day. When I wasue on the 11th of May, I also used to say early/mid May. A 20 days window is very precise I would say :) Since babies anyway usually dont hit the precise day.
      It seems Meghan was very fair with her response.

      Delete
    5. Pam from Boston11 April 2019 at 15:52

      Penny, I agree with you. I think famous people often quote a due date that's later than the actual date, to throw the public off, so they're not expecting it yet when it happens, with the intention of reducing the amount of attention focused on them when the baby does make it's arrival.

      Delete
    6. Annette New Zealand14 April 2019 at 05:11

      My obstetrician told me that some doctors prefer not to give a definite date as the birth can be a couple of weeks before or after that. He also said that he gave the latest possible date to his patients so they wouldn't get anxious. (The birth was earlier!)

      Delete
  9. Thank you very much Charlotte for these details. I think this baby Sussex decision and organization is super-thoughtful and has nothing to do with the order of succession, but rather with the tremendous, extraordinary interest aroused by the future baby Sussex. And I do not think that the child (or children) of the Sussex will not have royal responsibilities later because Prince Harry is at the origin of the creation of big projects like the Invictus Game and others that his children will have to also follow a day when the British monarchy survives or not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Saying that baby Sussex "will have to" be involved in his/her parents interests is like saying "I'm a teacher therefore my child must also be a teacher". Everyone develops their own interests and should be allowed to follow their own path. It would be nice to think Harry and Meghan's child/children would want to take on favored projects and charities some day but should never be forced to do so.

      Delete
    2. Case in point Helena that neither William nor Harry decided to become involved in the work Charles has done over the years with The Prince’s Trust. They support him, like they did with the premier last week, but even where their interests overlap like conservation they preferred to focus on their own projects. I am sure they will want their kids to do the same.

      Delete
  10. I think another reason for Meghan and Harry to keep the birth as quiet as possible is so her family won't be in the news to comment until the last moment. I'd love it if we didn't hear anything from the Markles, but past experience says they'll have something to say after the baby is born. Part of it is the press's fault. Meghan's father has been quiet of late, but just yesterday there were photos of him going about his daily business. Some paper will make up a story and he'll feel pressured to comment. I hope the press leaves her family out of it so Meghan and Harry can just focus on the joyous event.
    Also, I am not clear about how Charles wants to streamline the monarchy yet involve Harry and Meghan. I thought H and M want to separate themselves from Charles and William( b/c Harry isn't in the line of succession) to focus on causes important to them. I think it will be difficult for the Sussexes to keep their children out of the public eye while they themselves are working royals. Time will tell.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Harry and Meghan are effectively employed by the state to further the profile of Brand UK. They might not be paid a salary, but they are provided with Frogmore Cottage, Protection officers, clothing allowance, staff etc. They can not simply choose (and I doubt that is their intent) to distance themselves from the “firm” and focus on their own projects without giving up a number of these privileges.
      Yes, they have more freedom to set their own agendas than the Cambridges, but their first responsibility is still the UK and the BRF.

      Delete
    2. I was thinking the same thing about that family! Hopefully things stay quiet!

      Delete
    3. Becca H in Colorado11 April 2019 at 16:19

      Samantha Markle has already spoken out again. I really wish all media outlets would STOP giving her a platform.

      Delete
    4. Oh BeccaH, Ugh........... (insert eye roll)

      Delete
    5. Anything to keep the Markles out of this is best, and good on Meghan and Harry for doing so. Samantha and both Thomas Jr and Sr have treated Meghan and her baby like property and exploited her and the baby from the get go. To exploit an unborn baby is the most disgraceful and disgusting thing I have ever seen, and it won't stop once the baby is born. It's Meghan and Harry's baby and marriage. No one else's!!

      Delete
  11. She may have given birth or is in labor as we speak. I can understand their need for privacy and hope all goes well during the birthing process. Oh my gosh, I am so excited to know about the baby.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Becca H in Colorado11 April 2019 at 16:20

      The palace said they'd give notice when Meghan was in labor, so I doubt it's happened yet.

      Delete
    2. I know they said they will make and announcement when Meghan goes into labour, but I am actually wishing they would give that a skip too. I wouldn’t want the whole world talking and speculating while I am in labour. Might as well just make an announcement when the baby is savely delivered.

      Delete
  12. Sounds like a smart plan to keep Baby Sussex private, because he/she will be private. Being Meghan's child, I imagine that with his/her exposure and financial opportunities, he/she will pick an interesting career path and would never want to be a working royal. Charles' new vision for the monarchy makes a lot of sense. I have appreciated Charles and his interests for a long time, and I am really interested in his artwork.

    It could be 25 years or longer before William has to become king; George may not be on board about his chosen life plan, so the monarchy may change to something more ceremonial, perhaps involving all of the Cambridge children. In my view, Queen Elizabeth represents a special era. Every "ruler" has been different, and 100 years represents a great change in society. I don't think expecting a child who has personal interests to give them up is a very sustainable model. W

    I'm very glad that we will know when the baby comes; I can wait (I guess) for a photo if I know baby and mom are OK. I agree that regular photos will be needed to keep the curiosity down. I see the Cambridge children so often that I never give a paparazzi photo a second thought, which is good. The public needs to be desensitized, and I think even Meghan will be less sought after with time.

    I saw with a chuckle how happy Harry looks in the engagement and wedding photos. He has really experienced amazing gains in the last couple of years!

    Well, this baby better not wait until May!!!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Daniel Martin, Meghan's make-up guru, was hanging out in London only a few days ago. Hmmm!

    ReplyDelete
  14. I remember Harry saying in an interview once that if he was lucky enough to have children someday, he wanted them to have a private life. I think he is gradually trying to educate everyone to the fact that he and Meghan have a public life, but he wants to ensure that his children do not have to have one (unless they choose it for themselves when they are old enough to make a decision). I imagine they might even decline to use HRH for their children when Charles becomes king. Since they will not have been HRH's from birth, it will not be a big issue, IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Well, I'm off to London this April (for the private screening of that film we were shooting last summer & production meetings, as I have signed on to do 2 more films with the same London,UK Production Company). So it will be exciting to be over there for April/May, during such an exciting time. I've added in days throughout my stay to do my own shopping, exploring (I love my time over there on my own sans famile) when I can decide at the drop of a hat what I want to do & I don't have to compromise with Hubby & the kids! lol :) A day/overnight in Windsor is on the list, so it will be interesting to see how that plays out for me & what is going on at the time with the arrival of Baby Sussex!? I'll keep you all posted if there are any fun experiences related to the arrival of Baby Sussex while I'm there. :) xx

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Becca H in Colorado11 April 2019 at 16:22

      How fun, keep us posted! I'll be there in October to celebrate my 30th :)

      Delete
    2. Becca USA -- that sounds like a really fun and exciting time! One of these days, I bet you will have a personal royal encounter. :)

      Delete
    3. Becca, you have much to look forward to. I am excited for you and will be living vicariously through you as you may be privy to some first hand information while in Windsor about baby that you will share. If you desire company it will take me but a moment to pack!

      Delete
    4. Pam from Boston11 April 2019 at 19:28

      Lucky you! I was there last April and hoping Prince Louis would be born while I was there. He decided to make his appearance about 36 hours after I left :(

      Delete
    5. Have a great time on your days off work, Becca USA. Hope you get to do everything you wish for! Right now, the idea of days off work, in England, with family provided for otherwise, sounds like a perfect dream.

      Delete
    6. Oh, You gals are The Best!! Doesn't being a Royal Watcher just make all travel throughout UK & Beyond that much more interesting!!!! :) xxx So BeccaHinColorado, how much fun you'll have for your 30th in Oct!! :) Allison.... ah.. wouldn't that be fun? Of course my brothers always have the random celebrity encounters & one was walking in London & Diana jogged by & almost bumped into him & she stopped & giggled & chatted with him for a while!!! :0!!!! lol I mean....... they just kill me with these "no big deal" situations they are always in!! lol :) USAGranny... I'd say no prob, but it'd be a bit tight on the return home, after shopping! lol :) xx Pam, I remember your trip last Spring!! So close, but it sounded so lovely all the same!! :) MarciAndy, you hit the nail on the head..... I love my family..... but Not having to compromise????? Ahhhhh..... Nirvana!!! lol lol lol :)xx

      Delete
    7. Zora from Prague12 April 2019 at 07:34

      Becca USA, enjoy every moment of it!!! :) I was there on my own without my family in June 2016 for the Queen's 90th birthday celebrations and it was such fun! You are lucky and and I do hope you'll see a lot, perhaps even a couple of HRHs! ;) Please keep us updated, it'll feel like being there with you!

      Delete
  16. Pam from Boston11 April 2019 at 15:58

    So much focus on this baby right now, but I'm also thinking about Prince Louis having his 1st birthday soon! I'm hoping for a 1st birthday photo.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Becca H in Colorado11 April 2019 at 16:22

      I was thinking that, too! And Charlotte's birthday, as well.

      Delete
    2. Yes, Louis' birthday on the 23rd and Charlotte's to follow on May 2nd.

      Delete
  17. I really hope she doesn't have a home birth. That so sends the wrong message of shunning proper medical care and encourages bad practices. But seeing as how they were at that alternative "medicine" store a week or so again, I suppose this is going to be par for the course. Very disappointing.

    And I'm not surprised they won't make an appearance upon leaving. But it will be a bummer not to see them and have the anticipation of waiting for them to come out and all of that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I’m too much of a worrier to even think about a home birth, so thank goodness I’m not in that situation! But yes, I would be too concerned about what could go wrong without being in a hospital.
      I understand them wanting to control the hype around their child at birth, but honestly I think that ship has sailed. If anything, I think this is making people more baby crazy because we know we won’t have any details until birth.

      Delete
    2. I have had multiple home births. Statistics show with healthy low risk moms and qualified certified midwives it is just as safe to give birth at home. Certainly many women opt to give birth in a hospital which is perfectly fine, but home births are nothing close to dangerous. I doubt Meghan will chose a home birth but it is definitely a valid choice and one I hope is allowed if she so decides.

      Delete
    3. azaluckyj, Until recently all Royal births were "home" births. The Queen was born at the residence of her maternal grandmother. The Queen had her four children at either Clarence House, or Buckingham Palace. With Charles she was in labour for 30 hours and had a C-section. It was Princess Anne, who bucked the home birth trend and went to St Mary's Paddington, for delivery. Rest assured that it Meghan delivers at Frogmore Cottage, she will still have proper medical care. They won't be doing this on the kitchen table. If the Queen's C-section was done "in house" you can figure an entire operating room was constructed for the procedure and could happen again if needed.

      Delete
    4. I don't see how they are "shunning proper medical care" when they probably have a team of doctors on standby. This is Windsor, not the middle of nowhere.

      Delete
    5. Was the Queen shunning proper medical care when she delivered her children? Maybe it's more of a dial-back to a better way. Do you watch "Call the Midwife"? Millions of older Britains were born at home.

      Delete
    6. Well, I would have died if I would have had a home birth... just saying. No statistics can change that.

      Delete
    7. It’s interesting to me azaluckyj, that you come here only to make pronouncements that are sure to cause a stir and then leave. While I believe that you have a right to voice your opinion I just wish you would do it elsewhere.

      Delete
    8. Midwives have all sorts of protocols and situations to watch for -- they do not hesitate to switch quickly to a hospital scenario.

      Delete
    9. Thesesa, luv ya back!

      Delete
    10. I agree. Though Queen Elizabeth had home births with all her children she wasn't Meghan's age when she had them. I sit on the side of caution since Meghan is a high risk pregnancy due to her age and being a first time mother. Yoga aside many things can go wrong. I hope she had a successful birth and all goes well with her and baby.

      Delete
    11. Laura, lol-ing at your kitchen table remark :-) Did the Queen actually have the C-section "in house"? Funny you should mention the kitchen table. My dad was born in 1918 and was actually born on her mother's kitchen table. Granny was very tiny and my dad was an 8+ pound baby. It was a long hard labor. She said there was a lot of blood and they used her beautiful, white, store-bought, wedding gift, bath towels to mop it up, and her mother threw them away afterwards. They gave her a hysterectomy after the birth, because they said she should never have another child.

      Delete
    12. Laura - Charles wasn't born by C-section.
      The Queen herself and her sister, however, were born by C-section at home.

      Delete
    13. HM was exactly Meghan's age when Edward was born at BP.

      Delete
    14. I have worked as a nurse in Labor and Delivery and home births a perfectly safe as long as there is a contingency plan to get to hospital fast should the need arise. Midwives are extremely skilled medical professionals who will not hesitate to arrange for a patient to switch to a hospital environment if circumstances change. It's so dogmatic to state that home births are not "proper medical care" and "bad practice". Meghan and Harry (like any other expecting couple) are entitled to choose what works best for them. Besides, as Charlotte stated at this point this info is all SPECULATION.

      Yasmine

      Delete
    15. I just want to clarify my comment earlier. I don’t care if Meghan has her baby in a hospital, at home, or in a tent in the back yard (joke!) I have always said that as long as the baby and mom are healthy, that’s all I can hope for. I was just speaking personally because I have anxiety and the thought of having a baby anywhere except a hospital just makes me personally nervous. I wasn’t passing judgment on the use of midwives or of home births, because I’m no expert and have no intention of ever giving birth. I think how a person chooses to deliver their baby is their own personal choice, and I’m sure they (Meghan, Harry, and their birthing staff) have all sorts of plans in place for all scenarios.

      Delete
    16. Anna, you are incorrect. Charles WAS born by C-section.

      https://www.cheatsheet.com/health-fitness/queen-elizabeth-broke-this-royal-rule-when-giving-birth-plus-the-horrifying-details-of-her-labor.html/

      Delete
    17. Annette New Zealand14 April 2019 at 05:19

      and of course she would have several doctors present as well as the one actually delivering the baby

      Delete
  18. I am very glad that Harry and Meghan made this decision to keep things private. They are choosing what works best for them. They should be able to enjoy this time in peace and privacy.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I’m glad that the Sussexes will be able to become parents like an ordinary (wealthy) couple. I remember when George was born, Kate and William had only a few precious hours together. Harry’s children will be more like Ann’s, able to choose their own lives. Exciting times. Wishing for a safe birth, and healthy mother and child.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They had more than a few hours, it was just interrupted for a bit by the photocall ;)
      Im npt saying the photocall was a good idea though.

      Delete
    2. No, Kate and William left the hospital the next day with George. They had almost a full day with him before they went home.

      Delete
    3. I know it must be so uncomfortable to come out after giving birth but I am so glad Kate did. The world went crazy with excitement and love, I think.

      Delete
  20. Becca H in Colorado11 April 2019 at 16:29

    This decision makes perfect sense and fits with their personalities and situation, I think. I'm not sure how well H&M will be able to keep their children private given that they, themselves, are working royals, but I'm sure we won't see nearly as much of their kids as we do of Kate & William's.

    For the longest time, I always thought that each descendant of the monarch was automatically titled HRH/Prince/Princess. I remember the small shock when I found out this wasn't the case. I'm almost wondering if such titles ought to be done away with as we continue to move into the future.

    My question about a streamlined monarchy is what on earth is Charles going to do about Edward/Sophie and Andrew? They're working royals, so what is he going to do, make them move into other ventures? And the cousins of the Queen are still around, not necessarily working royals, but definitely benefiting from the Crown? I'm just curious as to how this streamlined vision will actually be put into motion.

    I've always wondered how hard and/or awkward it is for those grandchildren/great-grandchildren of monarchs who are part of the royal family and somewhat in the public eye, yet still have to find their own way in life like the rest of us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Becca, I also wondered what would happen to Anne, for example. I'm sure she would adjust, but there would be so many visits missed by the country.

      Delete
    2. You raise good questions. I would hate to see some of the other royals put out to pasture after years of service if Charles doesn’t see the need for them, but maybe he would just let them phase out instead of giving them the boot. But who knows. I guess we will see when/if the time comes.

      Delete
    3. My theory or prediction about the "streamlined monarchy" Charles wants is:
      -- People of the generation (or distance from the crown) like Kents and Gloucesters would be retired off.
      -- Siblings of Charles would continue on with their current charities and patronages, but would not be given new ones.
      -- Charles's siblings would also no longer represent Charles/"the Crown" at overseas events like other royal weddings/funerals/coronations (like the Wessexes often do) - these duties would instead start going to Harry and Meghan as they would be in a similar role/position to the Wessexes.

      Delete
  21. Im so torn, I love Traditions and Royal traditions is what makes the Royal world so much fun the more they move away from them the more they are just normal people not Royals and that can pose some issues. That being said since the Sussex children most likely wont have much of future role as working royals this works.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know. I feel the same way. I love royal tradition and the way they do things differently from us.

      People are saying Anne, Fergie and Sophie did not do photocalls upon leaving the hospitals with their newborns. They all did. Having a completely private birth is a huge deviation from the modern norm. Mike and Zara don't count because they are not working royals.

      Delete
    2. I totally support whatever decision Harry and Meghan make about when and where to share their new addition wiith the world. It does sound like they are going to do some sort of photocall, just not at a hospital in front of a sea of reporters.

      In support of Anon 20:26’s saying most other royals after the queen have done some sort of photocall, there is an article on royal musings that supports that point very clearly, and it didn’t start with Diana, which surprised me to find out:

      http://royalmusingsblogspotcom.blogspot.com/2019/04/looking-back-at-outside-hospital.html?m=1

      Again, I have no problem with Harry and Megan’s decision, but I have seen a lot of articles saying Diana and Kate were the only ones who did that type of photocall, and that’s not correct information.

      Delete
  22. I'm completely good with this. My first thought was, George was also one day old, when he was presented, so one more day is not a big deal. I'm very happy about this, hopefully it will be a safe and short delivery. Can't wait! (And I must admit, after I saw there's a new post, for couple of minutes I thought the baby is already born. I barely missed a smaller heart attack. :D)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. HaHa, Gaby. I totally slept through the excitement of Louis's birth. By the time I was awake and checked the news William was on his way back to the hospital with the other two children. What I am especially looking forward to is Papa Harry cuddling the baby. What a sweet sight that will be.

      Delete
    2. Did you have a night shift on 23rd April last year or do you live overseas?

      Delete
  23. I am interested to know what Charles's vision for a streamlined monarchy looks like. If I'm not mistaken, currently the working royals are the Queen, her children, and Charles's kids. Charles will presumably have himself and Camilla, his children, and (when they are older) perhaps William's kids. That seems the same to me? Is it just a delicate way to retire Anne and his brothers? Any thoughts from more knowledgeable royal-watchers?

    Oh, and yay, baby! I'm glad we will find out when something happens! I wonder if Meghan is figuring out that she will be criticized no matter what she does so she may as well do what she believes is right.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pam from Boston12 April 2019 at 00:53

      There's also the queen's cousins the Duke of Gloucester (and his wife the Duchess of Gloucester), the Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra. They are all working royals. However, I'm not educated enough on the RF to know why Princess Margaret's children Sarah Chatto and the Earl of Snowdon are not working royals.

      Delete
    2. I got the impression that those that are already working royals would remain working. That Charles' idea of a streamlined monarchy would impact nieces/nephews/cousins (Beatrice, Eugenie, Louise and James) not necessarily his siblings. Down the road this would impact his grandchildren by Harry (as they would be the nieces/nephews/cousins of William/George. But it seems like Harry and Meghan are in alignment with that and will raise their children with that thought in mind.

      Delete
  24. I have to differ from Rebecca English, Meghan might consider a home birth, but definitely nothing like what the Queen had. HM had her babies at home because it was considered out of the question for the heir to the throne (and later the queen) to do something as vulgar as give birth in a public hospital. But that did not stop them from setting up a fulling equiped theater in BP in case of emergency.

    Interesting tidbit, rumour has it that at least one of her children, Charles, was actually born by Ceaserean at Buckingham Palace, although it was never confirmed by the palace. You can find the story in Ingrid Sewards book “My husband and I”.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Becca H in Colorado11 April 2019 at 21:23

      It couldn't have been Charles -- as I understand it, when you have a C-section you can only have 2 more children, all of which must be C-sections, as well.

      Delete

    2. Becca H in Colorado11 April 2019 at 21:23....is this your medical opinion Becca?

      Delete
    3. That definitely isn't the case anymore. I have a friend who had 4 c-sections, and others that have had done vaginal birth after c-section.

      Delete
    4. lt isn't the case today, but the medical filed has moved a long way.
      Back when the Queen was having kids, if you had a c-section all subsequent birth were also done by c-section. anyway, it was the queen mother who had two c-sections and the doctors advised her not to have any more children.

      Delete
    5. I saw somewhere on youtube that it was the Queen Mother who had a C-section when the Queen Elizabeth II was born.

      Delete
    6. It all depends on the woman's medical history & body. Many attempt to have a V-back after a c-section, & my daughter has had 5 c-sections! I'm not a Dr. but my Hubby's delivered more babies than I can count & our family it littered with Drs.

      Delete
    7. Becca H in Colorado11 April 2019 at 23:40

      Interesting, thanks Beth. Theresa, no, it's only something I heard once (both my sister and I were C-sections), but I had no idea if it were true or not.

      Delete
    8. Becca H, I put this link in a comment above. Yes, the Queen did have Charles by C-section. Can't find any information as to whether or not Anne, Andrew and Edward were also C-sections, but they likely were, because back in that time, it was once a C-section, the rest must be C-section.

      https://www.cheatsheet.com/health-fitness/queen-elizabeth-broke-this-royal-rule-when-giving-birth-plus-the-horrifying-details-of-her-labor.html/

      Delete
    9. My aunt, who is of the queen’s generation, had five children, all by Csection. And she was in a hospital for all of them.

      Delete
    10. When I first heard the story of Charles’ birth by C-section I also made it off as rubbbish for all the reasons mentioned above. But since then I have read about it a few different sources and realised that this is a fairly well substantiate rumour.

      Delete
  25. If Meghan chooses to have a midwife-assisted birth, she is not going against medical practices. I knew nothing about midwifery until I edited some books written by midwives who were also professors in the UK (I'm a medical copyeditor), and I was extremely impressed by their knowledge and practice. She will have a highly trained individual who will be in contact with a physician and hospital at all times. I hope some others write in favor of midwifery.

    ReplyDelete
  26. If Meghan chooses to have a midwife-assisted birth, she is not going against medical practices. I knew nothing about midwifery until I edited some books written by midwives who were also professors in the UK (I'm a medical copyeditor), and I was extremely impressed by their knowledge and practice. She will have a highly trained individual who will be in contact with a physician and hospital at all times. I hope some others write in favor of midwifery.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Medical Copy Editor!! Allison, how fascinating!! Hubby & my brother are both Drs. So we are drowning in Medical books & journals oh my!! lol :) xx

      Delete
    2. Midwives are used in the British free socialized medical system. The large majority of people who pay for private health insurance have their babies delivered by doctors.

      Delete
    3. I worked for Mosby and WB Saunders for years before Elsevier took over -- I'm sure the publisher is very familiar to your husband and brother! All the 2000-page tomes that have 50 editions -- I and others did before India took over. I still do some but also work for WebMD and Wiley and others. It actually has been useful and fun, and I edit some of the latest clinical trial data now, too.

      Delete
    4. Eve from Germany13 April 2019 at 08:07

      In Germany it is required by law that a midwife HAS TO BE present during the birth process, a doctor can be present or can be asked by her to be present (in case of a medical urgency for mother and/or baby), but a doctor can NOT assist a birth process on his/her own (unless, of course, it´s an emergency and a midwife can´t attend in time). That´s how important midwives are!

      Delete
    5. Anonymous 2050&13 April 2019 at 18:41

      Eve! How are you? I missed hearing from you.
      Call the Midwife is one of my favorite programs.
      A nurse-midwife delivered my second child while the three obstetricians in the practice were at a party. I should add, it was a precipitous birth. I heard her ask as she was scrubbing in, "Who is available in hospital now?" Then after the reply, she said, " I'd rather do it myself. " I had a great recovery post-partum, thanks mostly to her skill. I was lucky because she had a graduate degree in obstetrics from a major university. The in-house doctor was apparently a bit past his expiration date.
      Four of my sister's five children were delivered at home by a mid-wife.

      Delete
    6. Zora from Prague13 April 2019 at 20:35

      Hi Eve! Great to hear from you! 😍It brings back memories of all the shared excitement and anticipation here on the blog before Harry and Meghan's wedding last May!!

      Delete
    7. Eve from Germany14 April 2019 at 14:01

      Hello, Anon 2050& and Zora! I´m doing fine! Thanks for asking! I´m mostly over on Twitter (_RoyalEve_)now, although I always read Charlotte´s great posts! :-)))

      Delete
    8. Zora from Prague14 April 2019 at 20:47

      Good to know, Eve! I'm neither on Twitter nor Instagram etc. so my only way of "seeing" you is here πŸ˜‰. I wonder how other commenters are: Erika, Surfer Girl and many more. I bet everyone is excited about the arrival of BabySussex! Thank you, Charlotte, for providing this opportunity of shared joy and excitement!

      Delete
  27. Most comment I've read elsewhere seem to consider the possible lack of a HRH title as a bad thing, a disservice to Harry and his family. But think about it: this child would still be the child or a Duke, with all the advantages of the family and position, plus the relative freedom that would come from NOT being in the front line when it comes to public roles and service. So why not? We'll see, I suppose.

    ReplyDelete
  28. It's great to have all this information, Charlotte, even while I'm hoping the Sussex family can remain as private as possible. What a conflict of wishes, huh?

    ReplyDelete
  29. It seems to me that Kate had a huge delivery team which included a mid-wife? Does anyoe recall? Nobody knows what Meghan and Harry have decided because they have decided that it will be a private issue. I see Meghan as an informed and sensible woman, not some hippy dippy new-age thing, and although it's reasonable that she may have a mid-wife, it's also reasonable to assume that all traditional medical assistance will be available. And although the Queen birthed her children in a palace, think of the cost of duplicating a hospital maternity delivery room in the castle! I'm sure she will have the best medical care possible, and hope she will have a safe delivery. They are certainly entitled to share their joy as a new family privately for a reasonable length of time, and obviously they recognize their obligation to the public because of their positions. I had a feeling that the press might have to go to Windsor, and it sounds such a sensible thing to do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, Kate had midwives as well as physicians on hand.

      Delete
    2. It is standard in the UK for babies to be delivered my midwives. Doctors are there for complications, emergencies and surgeries.

      Delete
    3. Tell me if this sounds crazy... (but thinking back to watching #TheCrown) I wonder if they could possibly be planning on having a medical grade set up at Windsor Castle for her to have a home birth, but with room enough to have a surgical suite, so lest a c-section be needed, they wouldn't have to move her... plus security would be no problem...... I mean you can't be more secure than in an impenetrable fortress like Windsor Castle!! Crazy idea???? :)

      Delete
    4. They would know by know if a c-section were needed. Only in extreme emergency situations are c-sections unplanned.

      Delete
    5. Becca, I'm sure Harry will do what Meghan needs/wants, so it may not be a crazy idea. :) But medical equipment is so far advanced/expensive now than 50 or 100 years ago, so maybe it's not totally feasible.

      Delete
    6. Becca USA, it is of course possible, as they did it for the Queen at Buckingham Palace. But that was a different time, with a different view on giving birth. Well, women did not really give birth, babies just arrived, right (delivered by the stork?)
      If Meghan has a fully equipped theater set up in a palace when there is a perfectly good hospital (or two) mere minutes away, it will forever cement a reputation of being a spendthrift. I don’t think that is a road they want to travel.

      Delete
    7. Then RachelZA.... I want this baby to Arrive!!!! lol lol lol :) xx (or babies.... Te!He!)

      Delete
  30. I really thought her due date was April 10 (by my own calculations). Perhaps this announcement is a ruse and they’ve already had the baby? It would certainly give them a few days of peace...

    ReplyDelete
  31. Speaking of downsizing the royal family, I imagine that as the older generation of royals retire, they simply won't have recruits to replace them. The Queen's cousins are all at least in their seventies or eighties. I remember someone asked the Duke of Kent when he will retire, and I think he said when the Queen does. I imagine that William will not be asking his cousins to be working royals as the Queen did.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Wonderful news! I’m happy that the Sussexes will announce further information about their baby when they’re ready! Prince Harry certainly looked happy & excited at his engagement today, opening a youth Centre, in East London.

    Dena

    ReplyDelete
  33. I fully anticipate that The Duchess will have a home birth.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I also think Charles slimmed down monarchy refers more to the lack of royal roles for Edward and Andrew’s children, than to Anne, Andrew and Edward themselves.
    But also don’t forget Anne is 68 herself, she might decide to scale down when it is not a case of her mother needing her.

    ReplyDelete
  35. So excited for this birth and I respect their right to privacy but I am a bit sad we won't see them on the day the baby is born and know its name like Kate and Princess Diana did before. I like Royal Tradition. However I just wish they have a healthy and happy baby.

    Thanks Charlotte.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Zora from Prague12 April 2019 at 08:08

    I hope all goes well, wherever Meghan gives birth. I'm looking forward to the first pictures, whenever they appear. I decided to be patient and content, despite the fact that I check this website every morning for potential news πŸ˜‰! And when I saw this post I was thinking, for a moment, that Baby Sussex has already arrived!

    ReplyDelete
  37. Do you think that the traditional easel will be on display after baby Sussex is born? It is quite a drive for the signed announcement to come from presumably Windsor to the Buckingham palace forecourt, an I right? Judging by the Buckingham palace information given out this morning, I'm actually thinking that Baby Sussex will arrive and the news won't be made public knowledge for a while after, maybe even a day or two.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Also, judging by when they annouced the pregnancy and said that they had already had their 12 week scan, I think Meghan is actually due now, and is either 39 or 40 weeks pregnant, and that if baby Sussex hasn't already been born, he or she (my money is on a girl) will be born in the next 10 days. My bet is he or she will make an appearance next week and they have released this announcement, without ever releasing a due month (as Kate and Will did), at the last moment to avoid fuelling the media circus. We shall see!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pam from Boston12 April 2019 at 15:32

      I agree that she could be due around now, especially considering her last official engagement before going on maternity leave was on March 11, and Kate always went on leave one month prior to the due date. And with Meghan's work ethic, I'd be surprised she'd go on leave as much as 6 or 7 weeks in advance (April 29 being 7 weeks after March 11. So if it were due that late in April or even in early May, that would be a very long leave in advance of the birth).

      Delete
    2. She actually did not begin maternity leave on March 11th. That was when she ceased public engagements, but she was still having meetings behind the scene until the last weekend of March. Omid Scobie reported this and said that her maternity leave was not officially beginning until the final weekend of March. There was no mention of the 12-week scan in the pregnancy announcement. Yes, this is the length of time most couples wait before announcing a pregnancy, but we do not know for sure that was the case with Meghan and Harry. It was an assumption made at the time, but nothing definitive was said about the 12-week scan.

      Delete
    3. Pam from Boston12 April 2019 at 18:34

      The blog's post on March 14 confirmed she had begun her maternity leave.

      Delete
    4. If I remember correctly, the visit to Smart Works on the 22nd was Meghan's last engagement. It's the last event recorded in the Court Circular.

      Delete
    5. Oh I remember a whole lot being made of her already having the 12 weeks scan, possibly in response to the backlash that they announced the pregnancy so close to eugenies wedding? From the commentary here in Australia during the tour, a lot was made of the fact that she was starting to show and that is why an announcement was made as they touched down. I don't know about her, but I myself was not showing until at least after 12 weeks with my first pregnancy and I'm quite petite too. She really did seem further along around the time they went to Fiji (blue evening gown comes to mind?) but anyways, no one knows for sure but them! The guessing is really exciting though :) but yes I think that she's due right about now, but first babies are often late so we'll see- he or she I think will come by the end of April for sure! πŸ’•πŸ˜

      Delete
    6. Did you do a post on the March 22 Smart Works engagement? I cannot find it. Kate's last official engagement before Louis's April 23 birth--actually two different ones that day-was March 22nd. Were you thinking of that perhaps? Starting with the March 17 shamrock engagement, Kate had five engagements/meetings that week, following a very full March otherwise.
      In reviewing the archives,I read that you had commented on Kate's having a busy final two months prior to her last engagement March 22, 2018.
      Meghan went to New Zealand House the 11th and to a christening with Harry after the 11th. She popped in on a Harry engagement, but I don't recall if that was before the 11th. There were reports of meetings and a shopping sighting but no advance- scheduled engagements after March 11, as KP announced. You reported that announcement. I think that is why some have insisted that Meghan started her official leave March 11. There may be a confusion for some of final scheduled engagement with final (unscheduled in advance) appearance, which could appear in the CC, following the appearance. The key word is "scheduled."
      In my check of the archives I noticed a great post on a review of Kates's maternity outfits. You showed side-by-side photos of Kate in her re-wears of outfits from previous pregnancies. I enjoyed it a second time. Would you consider doing a review of Meghan's outfits for this pregnancy? Some were truly spectacular. Maybe just the highlights? My favorite was the blue gown from the tour. Just gorgeous.

      Delete
    7. Pam from Boston13 April 2019 at 18:44

      I had thought that her last official engagement was March 11 because I follow Meghan only through this blog, and there was a post on March 11 reporting on an engagement (forget which one), and then the post on March 14 had this quote from a royal reporter: "Meghan has completed all public appearances in her calendar before the arrival of Baby Sussex." Then the only post I could find after that of Meghan having a public appearance was the visit to New Zealand House on March 19, which was only in response to the tragedy and not an official engagement, at least I didn't think it was. So going back through the blog, her last official engagement was the 11th. I also couldn't find one reporting on the March 22 Smart Works visit.

      All of this speculation is kind of silly anyway (although I find myself getting caught up in it :). The baby comes when it comes and even when it does, it’s date of birth will not necessarily be indicative of the due date, as babies come well before or well after their due date.

      Delete
    8. You are both correct, the Commonwealth Day service was the last public scheduled engagement. Meghan visited Smart Works privately on the 22nd and had private meetings with all of her patronages in March which were recorded in the Court Circular. I briefly referenced the Smart Works visit here.

      https://madaboutmeghan.blogspot.com/2019/03/guess-baby-sussexs-name-baby-shower.html

      I have a list of past appearances on the Meghan's calendar page

      https://madaboutmeghan.blogspot.com/p/meghans.html

      Delete
    9. Pam, the New Zealand House visit was, of course, an unscheduled engagement as far as prior placement in the royal diary. That unscheduled event took place that morning while another- scheduled- took place in the afternoon(she wore that white nurse-type hat and a green outfit in the morning). I thought that was 11 March. Both were official, although one was pre-scheduled and the other not. It is my understanding that unscheduled engagements can also be reported in the CC, although after the fact: for example, engagements the press is asked not to publicise ahead of the event (embargoed) and activities the royal does privately, such as a charity visit.
      I agree. It is silly to quibble. Whether scheduled or not, photographed or not, all engagements take detailed planning and effort, some more than others.

      Delete
    10. I think it can be safe to say that Meghan began her maternity leave on the 11th and she conducted several private meetings during the leave. I did something similar. Went on leave two weeks before my due date but conferenced in several times. I was definitely on leave but needed to tie up some loose ends before the birth.

      Delete
    11. Meghan had meetings after March 11th with all her patronages- so I go by what Charlotte and CC says March 22nd. We all know Meghan's work ethic.

      Delete
  39. Wonderful news! I’m happy that the Sussexes will announce further information about their baby when they’re ready. Prince Harry certainly looked happy & excited at his engagement yesterday, opening a youth Centre, in East London. It’s such an exciting time, I wish Meghan & Harry much success & happiness.

    Dena

    ReplyDelete
  40. Ok, is anybody else checking in here multiple times daily to see if there is any news? lol :) xx

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Zora from Prague12 April 2019 at 17:16

      Of course, Becca! 😁

      Delete
    2. Lol!! I’m here checking way more than I should be πŸ₯΄. I can’t help it, I’m just so excited for Harry and Meg!!

      Delete
    3. Lol yess!

      Delete
    4. Checking on my computer twice daily, then the phone hourly until bedtime! First thing I check when I wake up every morning!

      Delete
    5. Ha! Ha! Ahhhh... I'm in good company for sure! lol :) xx I was starting to feel like a lone stalker!!! lol lol lol :)xx

      Delete
    6. Me and my sister! I go to bed at the crack of dawn and she gets up at the crack of dawn, so we've got it covered! Did anyone see the Daily Mail with the pictures of Meghan as a baby? I try never to click on any of the stupid gossip mags, anymore, but I couldn't resist that one. What a cute baby she was. Makes me even more anxious to see Baby Sussex! I'm holding out for making it into the royal baby name lineup--me and Granny Jeanette. It will be the first time in my life I will have loved my name, if I make the cut!:-)

      Delete
    7. Yes, or even more, because it's weekend and I finished all my duties until Monday morning. :)

      Delete
    8. OMG!... I think I'm going to lose my Mind over waiting for this baby!!! lol lol lol :) xx

      Delete
  41. Thanks, Charlotte for this info. I’m happy for the Duke and Duchess and hope for a safe delivery and a healthy baby.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Ok, I have the next 3 days off so I really need for the baby to be born and photos posted so I can spend all of my free time oohing and awwing πŸ˜ƒ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. lol lol lol lol.... I like the way you think Lauri!!! :) xx

      Delete
  43. Yes, I'm checking all the time while waiting for my own first child to be born. It would be so much fun if we had our babies on the same day.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Awww....wishing you all the best Anna. I am awaiting my first grandchild, a little girl on 4/23. My daughter-in-law is having a c-section so the little baby will be born on Prince Louis' birthday :) - Exciting times - have a happy and safe delivery. All the best to you.

      Delete
    2. Oh Anna! How Exciting! Do Keep Us Posted!! :) xx

      Delete
    3. Wishing you a safe delivery and a happy healthy baby, Anna!

      Delete
    4. How exciting for you both!!

      Delete
    5. How exciting! I’m expecting my fourth in July! My first and Prince George were born the same summer and my second and Princess Charlotte are 3 weeks apart :) It’s very fun to be on baby watch at the same time as the royals! Praying for peace and a healthy safe delivery for you and baby!!

      Delete
    6. Zora from Prague13 April 2019 at 17:11

      Thinking of you and wishing you and your baby all the best, Anna! πŸ˜ƒ

      Delete
    7. Thank you all so much for your good wishes! It's such an exciting time for us and pretty sure for the Sussexes, too.

      Delete
  44. Because I have no life I am checking too! Yes, first thing in the morning too : )

    ReplyDelete
  45. Hi/Bye.... lol (just checking in again lol)xx

    ReplyDelete
  46. I can save everyone time and trouble. I will be traveling April 17 and will be limited in my checking baby news until the day after Easter. Therefore. . . Murphy's Law says Baby Sussix will be born April 17 and photos will be released sometime between next Friday and Sunday. lol

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. lol lol lol :) Happy Travels Helena & hopefully #BabySussex will have arrived before then! xx

      Delete
    2. Thank you Becca USA! The offer was made to spend Easter with extended family in Naples, FL and I couldn't turn that down! Safe travels to you as well. Enjoy your time in the UK.

      Delete
    3. Let's hope you won't miss it eventually! :D

      Delete
  47. Good for them! No woman should be made to pose for pictures in full makeup and high heels hours after she delivered a baby!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wholeheartedly agree!! I'm so glad they are putting what is right for their family first.

      Delete
  48. Meant to add: I imagine Doria is being watched closely, so she may not be able to fly here without being seen. Surely that would be a clue that birth was imminent?

    ReplyDelete
  49. While we hang around waiting for news I thought you guys might be interested in this little tidbit about the indirect power of royal tours. You might remember the stories during the Sussexes tour to Morroco about the “missing” princess Lalla Salma. Well, Lalla Salma was seen visiting an oncology unit this week. Even though it is an unofficial visit, it is the first time in over two years that she was out in public. I am sure the topic of Lalla Salma was not touched on during the tours, it is telling that Lalla Salma’s first outing in over two years is after the visits by the King and Queen of Spain and members of the BRF.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Hello everyone! A thought just occurred to me about the Sussex keeping the birth of their little one private. Besides the annoying fact of the world knowing you're in labor (I'm extremely private so that would be mortifying to me) but I wonder if there were a LOT of security concerns for Meghan and the baby. It seems like there are more threats towards Meghan and her little one than w the Duchess of Cambridge. It may be the way the media is portraying Meghan... But I feel like the threat level is higher than w the DoC. Anybody else feel that way?
    Prince Harry may be trying to protect his family at all costs. I don't blame him. It's interesting how your family view changes a bit after children are born. My husband and I are so much more protective of each other and our little ones.
    Also Meghan may have told Harry that there was no way she was walking out of the Lindo Wing after birth to be scrutinized even more by the world (No American would do that lol). They are both giving the world their lifetime of charity work and dedication. Therefore the world can give the couple a few private moments. I'm sure they looked at every angle when making these tough decisions. These were just a few of my thoughts...
    Also it's tax day in the USA. Has Meghan become a UK citizen yet? I've read articles about the IRS dipping their hands into the Royal family "coffers" somehow I just don't see Queen Elizabeth allowing that. And won't the child be 100% UK citizen? Because of tax stuff and being apart of the Royal Family?
    Charlotte, you do such a wonderful job! Thank you dear.
    Rachel from Bellingham, WA USA

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Meghan moved in with Harry six months before their wedding, so she has not yet met the three years required to apply for British citizenship. Their child will be born a British citizen, may choose to apply for an American passport since Is mother was born in the US. Meghan would only have to file for taxes in the US if she met the basic income requirement for 2018; yes, American’s do have to pay income taxes on money earned outside of the US. The money paid to the royals come from tax exempt trusts, so it would be unlikely that there is much private income/revenue on the books for the Sussex’ personally. Harry has his inheritance from his mother, but that it also held in trust..

      Delete
  51. on IG..."(and Baby Sussex)" Hint?

    ReplyDelete
  52. Gosh...I can't wait for Baby Sussex to finally be here! Praying for a smooth, safe delivery for Duchess Meghan and a healthy, happy bouncy baby to be born for the delight of both parents. God bless and keep this beautiful family!

    ReplyDelete
  53. As I remember my last few weeks of pregnancy, I imagine that Meghan's pretty much done with it at this point and is really ready for her daughter to make her appearance! Come on Grace, we're so ready to meet you!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like the name Grace...I also love the name Theresa.......

      Delete
    2. Or you could Americanize Alice and use Allison. :)

      Delete
  54. I think what Meghan and Harry have chosen to do is both sensible and thoughtful. They will not be putting everyone out by being the cause of hundreds of people camping outside the Lindo wing. They are letting the press know when Meghan is going into labor when they could just simply announce the birth. There will be a controlled photo call, and in Granny's backyard! Much nicer than a public road! They've ensured privacy for themselves to enjoy the first few hours or days after birth, but are also meeting their obligation to share with those in the world who support them and wish them well. They are accommodating everyone in the best way possible. The press are complaining because they don't all get to blind a poor little newborn with their camera flashes all at once? Really! If Meghan and Harry are feeling well disposed toward the media, they might even give a little interview during the photocall.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Interesting everyone views on the reasons why. Personally my take was that it was part of the drawing the line between the direct line and the rest of the royals. Part of the job description of the mother of the future sovereign to present the new heir to the world on leaving the hospital but not of any of the other royals. Zara and Peter Phillips didn’t and they like Harry are grandchildren of the Queen. The trouble is we including every form of media make assumptions and have expectations and then are somewhat disappointed. My hope is that there will be no HRH titles just a handicap for someone who has the opportunity to carve out a role in life unlike George who has no choice. Eugenie and Beatrice might have had an easier run without theirs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you both, Libby and Anon20:57. It seems like such a smart move -- their baby is not an heir for all practical purposes, so why not let him/her start their life as the citizen that the other children are. Granted being grandchild of the king is rather special, but still it does not cross the magic line. And why should Meghan have to worry about a presentation? I read the complaints of one seasoned "reporter" and thought that as a man, he didn't have a clue. I think it would be better not to announce the labor, though, because that puts some pressure on announcing that everyone is fine after the birth.

      C&C going on a mini-tour on May 7 hopefully means Baby Sussex will be here by then!

      Delete
  56. Yes, Anonymous @09:19. God bless the Duchess of Sussex to deliver a healthy baby and keep this beautiful family safe.

    ReplyDelete
  57. I've made a complete circle round about this issue. lol At first I admit to being disappointed, then I came to see it was the best of both worlds, then I came to think it was really smart for a variety of reasons... not the least the idea of safety from threats! Then today I was reading about how peeved the press is about this breach in tradition & I had a chuckle... for we know that HM gave birth at Clarence House twice, as the Heir & then at BP, as The Queen with the last 2 boys. Both private, home births, with no photocalls! So as for tradition........ one has to look no further than what the reigning monarch did! :) Following in The Queen's footsteps sounds like following "tradition" to me! :) xx

    ReplyDelete

Welcome to Mad About Meghan! We do so look forward to reading your thoughts. Constructive, fair debate is always encouraged. Hateful, derogatory terms and insults are not welcome here. This space focuses on Harry and Meghan, not any other member of the Royal family. It's not the place to discuss politics either. Thank you for reading, we look forward to your comments :)